[metmom]

I'm simply examining your premise (that Darwin should not be considered a scientist because he studied theology, and did not have degree in a biology). Before I adopt that criteria as being a valid test of whether someone should be considered a scientist or not, I want to examine it on it's merits and see if it holds true. If it does not, then I have to ask why you've chosen to adopt it, and why you think I should.

Well, if not having a degree in science is irrelevant to whether someone is called a scientist or not and Darwin can be considered a scientist with only a degree in theology, then there's no justification for the evos to reject any of the claims of being a scientist made by IDers or creationists, some of whom do actually hold actual degrees in science, something Darwin could never claim.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Gordon Greene]

Wow... that’s a great response and something I did not know.

So going to school to learn about God qualified him to pontificate on the alternate theories of the beginnings of life in a scientific light and be taken seriously? I am now a scientist (And a darn good one in my own estimation)

Just wow.

[tacticalogic]

Well, if not having a degree in science is irrelevant to whether someone is called a scientist or not and Darwin can be considered a scientist with only a degree in theology, then there's no justification for the evos to reject any of the claims of being a scientist made by IDers or creationists,

That's an interesting proposition. If you can't do it based on academic credentials, then you can't do it at all.

I think there's valid reasons other than academic credentials that might be applied. You're free to argue that there cannot be any other basis to make that determination, but I'll be skeptical of the objectivity of that argument.