[Right Wing Professor]

If you are going to introduce individual persons as evidence, you have made the argument by definition ad hominem. If you claim X and Y are great scientists and support creationism, then the only reasonable rebuttal is 'X and Y are not great scientists'. I agree ad hominems are in general unacceptable, but if a positive ad hominem is introduced as evidence for a point, a negative ad hominem in rebuttal is only to be expected.

Regarding the individuals: Behe's Darwin's Black Box book is unconvincing and sloppy. However, I am familiar with his previous physical chemistry work on DNA, and it was scientifically rigorous. Damadian's 1972 patent does not include an NMR imager as it is understood by either the NMR or the more general imaging community.

[DittoJed2]

If you are going to introduce individual persons as evidence, you have made the argument by definition ad hominem. If you claim X and Y are great scientists and support creationism, then the only reasonable rebuttal is 'X and Y are not great scientists'. I agree ad hominems are in general unacceptable, but if a positive ad hominem is introduced as evidence for a point, a negative ad hominem in rebuttal is only to be expected.

The individual was brought up in response to a specific request that suggested that results can not be argued with and implied the worldview of Darwinism brought about those results. Worldviews are held by people. The person wanted one major medical breakthrough, and I gave her one by a Dr. with a creationist worldview. His breakthrough did not come through as a result of assuming that animals and humans are related.

Regarding the rest of the posts regarding Damadian, they were in response to attacks on him as a "crank" just like Behe is a "joke" and Menton is an "idiot."

Regarding the individuals: Behe's Darwin's Black Box book is unconvincing and sloppy. However, I am familiar with his previous physical chemistry work on DNA, and it was scientifically rigorous. Damadian's 1972 patent does not include an NMR imager as it is understood by either the NMR or the more general imaging community.
Behe's book is unconvincing to some, probably including yourself. I have heard other PhDs say that it is solid work.

Damadian's patent was for a device. He was also the one who apparently built the first machine. The implication was that he was making claims on work that he did not perform. The record shows he was working on the technology, and the Supreme Court backs him up.