[RunningWolf]

Buckminster Fuller had more qualifications than a few of the greatest proponents of evolution, for at least one them she had no formal education.

Its just more of the calculus that the evolutionists need to keep their belief propped up.

[ndt]

"Buckminster Fuller had more qualifications than a few of the greatest proponents of evolution, for at least one them she had no formal education."

But surely creationists can do better than to put forward an architect and a geneticist who believes in evolution. Right? Like....

BTW Buckminster Fuller was a dude and he had no formal education only if you don't consider Harvard and Bates College place to get a formal education.

[metmom]

Let's see now....

FRevos who have no scientific background or training are *qualified* to speak about evolution and all the shortcomings of ID/creation, even when their areas of study aren't specifically in the field of evolution or even science. Scientists who have PhD's in scientific fields and are much more highly educated than any handful of frevos randomly picked out and put together, are NOT qualified to speak on evolution if their PhD's are not specifically in the field of evolution itself.

So the question arises; Why should we take the word of untrained, unqualified evos who do it as a hobby over the word of a highly educated scientist who does science for a living when neither are speaking in a field of their expertise? Shouldn't the same standard be applied to both situations? Either we accept the words of scientists who are not specialists in evo because we accept the word of less educated evos who are not specialists in evo; or we do not accept the words of less educated evo when they speak on evolution because we don't take the word of highly trained scientists when they speak on evolution.