Replies

It does not matter what I post, your group will either scream "bad science" or "bad credentials" or "bad source".

If the shoe fits... :-)

But since you mention "bad credentials", I don't remember any "evos" on this thread making a big deal about credentials, either way. In my experience creationists put a much heavier emphasis on credentials than "evos" do -- probably for the reason you alluded to earlier, having to do with "I can't analyze this myself, so I'll rely on someone who seems to be an authority".

In science, actually, credentials will help you get a job (since they indicate that you've at least had enough education to be exposed to a lot of information), but pretty much don't mean squat when it comes to getting your ideas accepted or not. And since PhD's are a dime a dozen in the science community, degrees lose a lot of their ability to impress. This is especially true when you've met enough PhD's to learn that having gone to school long enough to get an advanced degree doesn't necessarily mean someone isn't a real idiot or kook. And even the non-idiot, non-kook variety can make mistakes like anyone else.

So when you list two pages of someone's credentials, don't be surprised if we all say, "So? That doesn't prove he must be right." In science, the quality of the evidence and the argument are everything -- not the reputation of the guy presenting them. Einstein was working as a patent clerk when he developed the theory of Relativity. That was no hurdle for the acceptance of his theory, because it was solid. Meanwhile, the guys who published the "cold fusion" paper were PhD's, and their work quickly fell apart under scrutiny.

Credentials are *no* measure of correctness.

Here are some examples of the latter (incidentally, not all are young earth creationists, they just disagree with the prevailing "knowledge" of evolution):

EXHIBIT A: Michael Behe: [snip long paragraph of credentials]

Again, credentials really don't matter, but I would like to point out one amusing bit of "resume puffery" in Behe's credentials: "Darwin’s Black Box has been reviewed by [...] over one hundred other periodicals." Um, okay... First, the number of periodicals a book has been "reviewed by" is less a measure of its value than its publicity. Second, this fails to point out that a large number of those reviews were negative, characterizing DBB's core thesis as fundamentally flawed (and identifying many of Behe's claims as simply false).

RESPONSE TO BEHE ON THIS THREAD:

First, let's look at how you originally introduced Behe into the thread: "They are also irreducibly complex, which Michael Behe deals with extensively in Darwin's Black Box." It's not like you presented much evidence or argument, you just made a claim (that some [unspecified] "things" were irreducibly complex) and waved Behe's book as your sole support. That wasn't much of an argument, you didn't even bother to describe Behe's thesis, and you rested your claim entirely on the fact that a book "deals with" the subject. I could point out that a lot of books "deal with" evolution, but that doesn't really say or prove or add much to the discussion either, does it? So before you imply that we rejected your evidence or argument by rejecting the source, let me point out that you didn't actually *present* any. The fact that Behe wrote a book is not an argument.

Now on to the replies:

Post 1157:Most scientists look at Behe as a joke, and I have to say that I agree with them. Irreducibly Complex? Come on, give me a fricking break. When you are ignorant of the cause, to say Goddidit is the ultimate in laziness. Behe was lazy, pure and simple, or ignorant, take your pick.

This may be blunt, but it's an example of the "been there done that" attitude I mentioned in an earlier post. Behe's work has been out for several years now, and has been hashed over extensively. He's saying that Behe's thesis has been thoroughly examined already, and has been found wanting. I would agree. He even gives you a condensed version of the core flaw in Behe's thesis when he writes, "When you are ignorant of the cause, to say Goddidit is the ultimate in laziness." The point that Behe's central thesis is, basically, if Behe can't figure out how something could have evolved, then it must have been designed. This is an example of the "fallacy of the appeal to ignorance", which is the class of logical errors of the form, "if we can't think of how X could happen, it must be impossible." There are many more specific objections to Behe's book, but that's the central one in a nutshell.

From Post 1167: Then lonely little Behe doesn't help you with his credentials or his tiny little handful of ID brothers.

That was not a point against Behe, it was a response to a different point you made.

Post 1200:I've attended one of Behe's presentations on ID. Behe may or may not be a joke, but his presentation was.

This wasn't a response or rebuttal to any claim you made, it was a response to the comment in #1157 about Behe being a "joke". The poster in #1200 was agreeing by relating his personal experience.

So again, you didn't really present an argument, but you did mention Behe, so a few people were prompted to talk about him. This is not a good example of where you allegedly presented an argument or evidence and it was dismissed merely by bashing the source.

Exhibit B: Dr. David Menton

[snip resume again]

Strangely, though I have mentioned him several times, there is hardly any commentary at all (if any) about the work presented by Menton on this thread.

I'm sorry, weren't you trying to present this as an example of evolutionists discounting evidence using an excuse of "bad source"? How exactly does the fact that no one got around to discussing Menton support your claim?

Responses regarding Dr. Damadian on this thread:

You implied that Damadian single-handedly invented the MRI. People pointed out that there was a lot of ongoing dispute about that. What does any of that have to do with evolution?

Now, I post something from a website where the person does have some knowledge of science, but may not have the credentials you desire (i.e., he isn't an evolutionist), and you dismiss what he has to say as lacking authority.

*Where* have we allegedly done what you describe? Your above three examples don't fit your allegation.

I don't know why I should bother posting ANYTHING to you all any more because if it is not evolutionist you aren't going to accept it.

We'll accept it if it makes a good case. If you think we have unfairly dismissed an actual argument or evidence, please point it out. But mentioning that Behe wrote a book, or that Damadian was involved in the the MRI, isn't an argument or evidence. And failure to address Menton's links is no kind of dismissal, it seems to have just gotten lost in the flood of posts and dozen+ links that were flying around. We can't address everything if there's too much to focus on, which is exactly why I suggested making a "project" out of selected items.

EXHIBIT A: Michael Behe:

The quotes I posted on Mr. Behe shows the level of disrespect he received on this forum. He postulated something that is unpopular with your camp and was called a joke, a member of a lonely little group (or however it was worded), and a person who puts forth presentations that are a joke. This was highly disrespectful of another member of the scientific community. I would not show this kind of disrespect towards Darwinists (even though Francis Crick's Directed Panspermia idea does strike me as desperately NUTS- I still would not say Crick himself were a joke, or belittle him based upon the number of other people who agree with him that seeds came here maybe on spaceships from other planets and made what we see today).

Exhibit B: Dr. David Menton
He is an example of creationist resources being ignorred. He wasn't attacked specifically, but his articles that were answers to certain posts were just glossed over.

Exhibit C: Dr. Damadian Responses regarding Dr. Damadian on this thread:
You implied that Damadian single-handedly invented the MRI. People pointed out that there was a lot of ongoing dispute about that. What does any of that have to do with evolution?

Give me a break! I answered a post by someone who wanted me to name one useful medical product that didn't come from the worldview that assumes man came from animals. Then I posted Dr. Damadian's MRI as a pretty significant example. Sanitize the conversation however you like, but the record will show that Damadian was a crank who basically has been using his money to try to convince folks that he came up with the technology first when in reality some other professor did so (making Damadian the apparent thief of intellectual property). When I posted a source stating that he was working on this technology 4 years prior to when the other fellow wrote the paper, and then posted further information stating he applied for a patent concerning MRI technology a year before the other guy's paper was written, received his patent the year after the paper was written and went on to build, apparently, the first MRI machine, I was told to provide proof that it was for IMAGING that his patent was for. Then, I went to the U.S. Patent office website and found that it was for an NMR Scanning device that the patent was for. I posted evidence that Damadian's claims have stood up to Supreme Court review verses the high powered attorneys at GE, and showed links from all over the place that he is considered the inventor. And yet, Damadian is still called a "big crank" and shown a childish level of disrespect on the thread. What it has to do with evolution is that it answers the post regarding useful medical equipment and shows that some people with a strong understanding of science indeed see a young earth as plausible.

Now, I post something from a website where the person does have some knowledge of science, but may not have the credentials you desire (i.e., he isn't an evolutionist), and you dismiss what he has to say as lacking authority.
*Where* have we allegedly done what you describe? Your above three examples don't fit your allegation.
How about in the post I was replying to. I posted a link from Scientists against Evolution and attacking the credentials of the website's author was a response I was given.

I don't know why I should bother posting ANYTHING to you all any more because if it is not evolutionist you aren't going to accept it.

We'll accept it if it makes a good case. If you think we have unfairly dismissed an actual argument or evidence, please point it out. But mentioning that Behe wrote a book, or that Damadian was involved in the the MRI, isn't an argument or evidence. And failure to address Menton's links is no kind of dismissal, it seems to have just gotten lost in the flood of posts and dozen+ links that were flying around. We can't address everything if there's too much to focus on, which is exactly why I suggested making a "project" out of selected items.
I have answered a great many posts singlehandedly. There are probably a dozen or so of you. You would think that my having mentioned Menton's work several times would have been noticed and picked up on by someone. Menton works with AIG and their work has been repeatedly groaned at and dismissed. AIG has several well qualified men working on their staff. Yet, because you don't like some of the things you have read, you may have found errors in others, you have had links posted to the stuff a lot, you seem to throw the baby out with the bath water. Menton (and others) are just as qualified to publish their assertions as evolutionists are- but for the lurker's ears, to correct the record, creationists are not just a group of unqualified, pseudoscientists. Many of them are very well qualified and experts on the material they are commenting upon.