Written numerous articles in technical and scientific journals dealing with bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and biomechanics of skin.
He differes from Darwinists only on the mechanism of variation, which he says is programmed from the time of creatin. This is not really incompatible with Darwinian evolution, except that Darwinists would argue it is impossible to prove or disprove.
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.
Ahem. It's nice that you seem pretty confident of it, but I'm troubled by the fact that as I glanced down the list looking for names I recognized, the VERY FIRST one that jumped out at me was bogus. It was:
57. Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) as seen in his address to the American Museum of Natural History (Nov. 5, 1981).This is a well-known example of dishonest quoting (2) (3) by creationists. Patterson was quoted out of context and then cited it to "show" that Patterson was "admitting" a lack of evidence for evolution. But when asked about the context of the quote, Patterson confirmed that he was not denying evolution and that "the creationists' [interpretation] is false".
Here's a quote from one of Patterson's books -- does this sound like an evolution-denier to you?
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."That doesn't give me much confidence in the rest of the list, especially since the Patterson misquote was debunked in 1993. It also doesn't bode well that many creationist websites are still using it...
This does not mean that these people are creationists. Some are, many are not. But it does go to show that the science is less universally accepted than proposed.
A list of a few hundred people who have expressed some kind of question about evolution is hardly proof that it's widely rejected. And that web page is engaging in a huge straw man when it claims:
"The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real scientific possiblity of Intelligent Design of life or the universe."Horse manure. No such overblown claim is "often made" that "few or no" scientists have doubts about evolution, etc. Everyone knows that there are quite a few such people. But they are still a small minority.
Meanwhile, in a winking parody of such "people who reject evolution" lists, there's the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve, which includes *only* scientists by the name of Steve or some variation of Steve (Stephanie, etc.) who have voluntarily signed onto this specific statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.The "list of Steves" is currently at 375 and growing. So the number of scientists named Steve who support evolution is nearly as large as the creationist list of EVERYONE they could dig up who question it. And like the Patterson example, I'm not sure the creationist list is all that accurate, and it includes people who accept most of evolution but have expressed concerns only about certain parts, like Behe.
Also, since the name Steve or some variation only makes up about 1% of the population according to Census statistics, the Project Steve list statistically represents 37,500 scientists who would sign on to support evolution if the name restriction were removed.
Furthermore, Project Steve has not been widely publicized, many more would surely join if they heard about it. Meanwhile, the creationist list appears to have been formed by straining to qualify as many as they possibly could find, including entire membership rosters of organizations presumed to be creationist, without actually having each member explicitly agree to their support of such a position.
Finally, about two thirds of the Steves supporting evolution are biologists. Biologists are much farther and fewer between on the creationist list.