'Teach the Controversy'
-
- Bark plop plop bark woof woof
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1568
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:13 pm
Re: 'Teach the Controversy'
I find it really quite revealing that a new snake species has been declared in Cambodia, but absolutely no one has suggested it has evolved from another species, or even from another snake. Why would that be? I would suggest that anybody who put forward such a notion would be a laughing stock in the scientific community. We all know it just doesn't happen that way.
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
There you are, the first sentence is answered by the last. There is no evidence - none - for Creationism. If you wish to teach it at schools, you might as well add Alchemy and Astrology into the curriculum as they have as much evidence and credibility.KL&fool wrote:Should one side or the other be taught - or both views presented? Is it possible to present either view as 'fact'?
"The issue with the 'teach the controversy' approach is that there is no scientific controversy over evolution and creationism. The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution."[/i]
Science is a set of hypotheses that have been established through repeated experimentation and observation to be a close representation of reality as best as we can understand it. Anyone can put metallic Sodium into a glass of water and observe the chemical reaction that is predicted to occur, it doesn't matter what you believe in. If a Creationist could undertake a similar type of experiment demonstrating that the theory behind it is credible, then let them do so and have the skeptics challenge it. It won't stand much scrutiny.
What is really happening here is that people who have little to no understanding of science, see the word "theory" as in "theory of gravity" and think that, according to the dictionary they opened, this means it's not proven or established fact. However, it is, as has been demonstrated numerous times at the observational level that we are able to achieve with our current technology. Now, our technology is advancing to the point where we can look even more closely at things and understand forces at incredibly miniscule or astonishingly ginormous scales. Not surprisingly, we're finding that these things require different frameworks and the science is evolving to understand how things work at these scales. Eventually by understanding these, we'll understand more about the scales we're able to observe on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps our theories such as gravity will be radically changed as a result. That's science. Does it mean the previous theories were wrong? Yes, to an extent it does. Does that mean that all the knowledge connected to that theory is wrong? No, it doesn't. It just means we have to find a better way to describe what happens to end up with the observations we record.
But it doesn't mean that because science is continuously evolving and changing and theory is not set in stone that it's wrong or somehow otherwise lends credence to a bunch of fairy tales and magic. Science is able to withstand whatever scrutiny it is put under because it's robust and based on observation and can be replicated by other scientists and skeptics. None of these things applies to Creationism, which belongs in the genre of literary criticism. But even there it falls down badly since it offers no real insight or understanding, just a rationalization of dogma that is accepted sine qua none and everything that stems from it is based on reinforcing the starting assumption. There's little art in that, just massive deception.
-
- Bark plop plop bark woof woof
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1568
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:13 pm
Suggest that you read Richard Milton's "Facts of Life". I think you'll find that a lot of science is like religion - you choose to believe in it, and people like Richard Dawkins become the sort of high priests, lampooning anyone who dares to challenge their authority or status quo.
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
That's utter nonsense from a journalist who's smart enough to realize the more controversial you are, the more you're likely to be read and the larger the number of books you'll sell. Besides, he's focused on "orthodox Darwinism" rather than science. But he's hardly very credible.Nasty Canasta wrote:Suggest that you read Richard Milton's "Facts of Life". I think you'll find that a lot of science is like religion - you choose to believe in it, and people like Richard Dawkins become the sort of high priests, lampooning anyone who dares to challenge their authority or status quo.
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 43356.html
Fact is, if Dawkins were to slip up, he'd be blasted first and foremost BY his fellow scientists, not by the crackpots.
-
- I Have Not Been Outside in a Week
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:20 pm
^ What JC said.
Trust me, there are few things more hilarious to scientists than the popular right-wing belief that they’re conformist types who worship scientific dogma in a way that’s analogous to religion, and that this results in all kinds of wonderful conspiracies on things like evolution and climate change.
Anyone who’s ever been to a science faculty meeting will tell you that universities and research institutes are not exactly hotbeds of conformity.
In fact, exactly the opposite is true: overthrowing the prevailing orthodoxy on a headline issue is a glittering prize in science, and anyone who achieves it wins instant fame, fortune and legions of followers. I can only guess why no “creation scientist” has ever achieved it.
A great reason for not “teaching the controversy” on these kinds of issues is because there isn’t one. For example, if you asked 100 experts in any relevant field about whether creationism/climate skepticism/etc. have any basis in reality, at least 99 of them would answer no. So how does that even remotely qualify as a “controversy” worth anyone else’s time or attention?
Trust me, there are few things more hilarious to scientists than the popular right-wing belief that they’re conformist types who worship scientific dogma in a way that’s analogous to religion, and that this results in all kinds of wonderful conspiracies on things like evolution and climate change.
Anyone who’s ever been to a science faculty meeting will tell you that universities and research institutes are not exactly hotbeds of conformity.
In fact, exactly the opposite is true: overthrowing the prevailing orthodoxy on a headline issue is a glittering prize in science, and anyone who achieves it wins instant fame, fortune and legions of followers. I can only guess why no “creation scientist” has ever achieved it.
A great reason for not “teaching the controversy” on these kinds of issues is because there isn’t one. For example, if you asked 100 experts in any relevant field about whether creationism/climate skepticism/etc. have any basis in reality, at least 99 of them would answer no. So how does that even remotely qualify as a “controversy” worth anyone else’s time or attention?
That's also my view. There is no controversy. There are differing groups with differing ideas, none of which are an ultimate, one-size-fits-all "truth".shitegeist wrote:A great reason for not “teaching the controversy” on these kinds of issues is because there isn’t one.
If you're teaching a biology class - then the students will, at some point, need to be told about theories of evolution. In the same way, if teaching an RE class - the same students will need to be told of the variety of religious beliefs that people hold.
The personal beliefs of either the teacher or "insert authority here" should have no undue emphasis or weight applied in the classroom.
My 2p.
- flying chicken
- I Love 440 More Than Real Life
- Reactions: 1
- Posts: 2974
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:57 pm
Very thought provoking. Like.
Everyone bow down and pay extreme homage to his Majesty flying chicken.
Of course "creation" differs depending on where you happened to be born. There's a nice list of creation myths here.
One thing you see a lot, with creationists, is the misunderstanding of the word theory. They tend to confuse it with "guess". No one doubts the theory of gravity. Its clearly observable but the truth is the theory of gravity is actually less understood than the theory of evolution.
I'd link to some credible, peer-reviewed papers on creationism, but they're not easy to find. Unlike the many thousands on evolution.
Ira
One thing you see a lot, with creationists, is the misunderstanding of the word theory. They tend to confuse it with "guess". No one doubts the theory of gravity. Its clearly observable but the truth is the theory of gravity is actually less understood than the theory of evolution.
I'd link to some credible, peer-reviewed papers on creationism, but they're not easy to find. Unlike the many thousands on evolution.
Ira
-
- Bark plop plop bark woof woof
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1568
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:13 pm
It seems pointless to get into long-winded arguments about evolution vs creation. The bottom line is that you need to have faith to believe either explanation. My point is that to blindly accept evolution as fact is ridiculous. A visit to the Natural History Museum in London is more like a fiction movie than a benchmark of fact. Science has its place, but even a cursory study of evolution shows that it is far from an acceptable explanation. Darwin at the end of his life didn't accept it, neither do I. Others will believe whatever the scientists tell them, even though as individuals they likely don't understand it, or more to the point, have no way to verify that what they are told is factual. Moreover, many people choose to bag creation even though they have never bothered to study the subject deeply.
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
Disagree strongly. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, peer-reviewed, and accepted by the vast majority of informed scientists who have spent their careers studying the subject matter. If you don't believe them, that's a different thing. Unfortunately that's however a measure of your lack of comprehension of science and the scientific method. I have said it I don't know how many times on this site on how many different topics, but any time you see something that could only be true if it involved a widespread and coordinated conspiracy among a large group of marginally connected people, IT'S NOT REAL! There's a reason we make fun of people who think this and mock them with the tin foil hat jokes. Bottom line is that it's almost impossible to get streamlined, highly trained, focused, coordinated and motivated groups to act in unison and achieve their goals. To do same with a group of disparate, unconnected, loosely coordinated and untrained people is completely impossible without it collapsing in disarray or ending in farce. It's certainly impossible to keep secret.Nasty Canasta wrote:It seems pointless to get into long-winded arguments about evolution vs creation. The bottom line is that you need to have faith to believe either explanation. My point is that to blindly accept evolution as fact is ridiculous. A visit to the Natural History Museum in London is more like a fiction movie than a benchmark of fact. Science has its place, but even a cursory study of evolution shows that it is far from an acceptable explanation. Darwin at the end of his life didn't accept it, neither do I. Others will believe whatever the scientists tell them, even though as individuals they likely don't understand it, or more to the point, have no way to verify that what they are told is factual. Moreover, many people choose to bag creation even though they have never bothered to study the subject deeply.
As to your other assertions - there is no evidence whatsoever that Darwin disavowed evolution prior to his death. This is based on a bunch of BS that is, surprise!, being spread by Creationists based on an apocryphal story by an Evangelist known as a creative storyteller who happened to have no witnesses when the incident took place. How convenient. Oh, and denied completely by every member of Darwin's family who actually WERE with him when he died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope
On what basis do you state that "even a cursory examination of evolution shows that it is far from an acceptable explanation"? If it's so cursory, then please grant us a paragraph whereupon you destroy a hundred and forty years of careful scientific research and debate. I'll be impressed.
I've reviewed some of the basic foundations of Creationism. They are completely at odds with the scientific evidence that demonstrates that the universe is billions of years old and that our earth is a couple of billion years old. If you wish to join the Flat Earth Society and claim it's actually around 10,500 years old, then it's your right to do so, but don't be surprised when we laugh at you and then don't take you very seriously.
This is why Creationism requires faith as the basic tenet of their system, there's no evidence to fall back on. Science requires no faith, other than faith that it's NOT a worldwide conspiracy of scientists getting together to somehow falsify data, falsify peer reviews, falsify experiments undertaken to verify the data and coordinate their statements such that there is minimal dissension among an enormous body of disparate people in different fields in different countries speaking different languages.
-
- I Have Not Been Outside in a Week
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:20 pm
Good grief. With apologies to Chuangt2u, I’m not one of those who believe all opinions are created equal, because this is exactly where it gets you.Nasty Canasta wrote:It seems pointless to get into long-winded arguments about evolution vs creation. The bottom line is that you need to have faith to believe either explanation. My point is that to blindly accept evolution as fact is ridiculous. A visit to the Natural History Museum in London is more like a fiction movie than a benchmark of fact. Science has its place, but even a cursory study of evolution shows that it is far from an acceptable explanation. Darwin at the end of his life didn't accept it, neither do I. Others will believe whatever the scientists tell them, even though as individuals they likely don't understand it, or more to the point, have no way to verify that what they are told is factual. Moreover, many people choose to bag creation even though they have never bothered to study the subject deeply.
The harsh reality is that for any given issue, there are people whose opinions are worth paying attention to, and people whose opinions are worth absolutely fuck all. Notwithstanding touchy-feely sentiments about “respecting opinions” and suchlike, all of us implicitly acknowledge this reality and act accordingly; if we didn’t, society would collapse.
For example, suppose some Walkabout skanks decided that the recent proof of the Higgs boson was an elaborate scientific hoax. Would this be a “controversy” worth spending tax dollars explaining to students?
-
- Bark plop plop bark woof woof
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1568
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:13 pm
Hey, I know my opinion is worthless. How valuable is yours? Everyone has one, and few are worth following up on. Demonstrable science is one thing, evolution is another. I've yet to see proof, just as you too.
JC. You are obviously a capable researcher. Do your own research, or your understanding will be based on what someone else said. Like I said, it is pointless arguing about this (on this forum). Nonetheless, there are many scientists and physicists who question the validity of evolutionary science and will point out the significant problems in widely held beliefs.
JC. You are obviously a capable researcher. Do your own research, or your understanding will be based on what someone else said. Like I said, it is pointless arguing about this (on this forum). Nonetheless, there are many scientists and physicists who question the validity of evolutionary science and will point out the significant problems in widely held beliefs.
-
- Bark plop plop bark woof woof
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1568
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:13 pm
Here's a short list of folk whose professional opinions possibly do matter, and they too question evolution.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, Physician
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Kenneth Royal, Psychometrics
Dr. Joachim Scheven, Palaeontologist
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Gordon Wilson, Environmental Science and Public Policy
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, Physician
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Kenneth Royal, Psychometrics
Dr. Joachim Scheven, Palaeontologist
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Gordon Wilson, Environmental Science and Public Policy
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
How many of those scientists have published credible papers that refute evolution and support (with evidence) the creationist "model"? Or are you playing words games when you say they "question" evolution? That is exactly what scientists are supposed to do, after all.
It is however a matter of degree.The bottom line is that you need to have faith to believe either explanation.
That is the whole point of science. You don't blindly accept anything, but put together the best fit for the evidence you have. Whereas creationists have "blind faith" in a story from an old book, based on no evidence at all, aside from "problems" they perceive with evolution.My point is that to blindly accept evolution as fact is ridiculous
Clearly you don't understand either, evolution in particular has many subtleties that are not obvious from "cursory study".Science has its place, but even a cursory study of evolution shows that it is far from an acceptable explanation.
Last edited by Ant. on Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Canadian Nonce Lawyer Fled to Teach in Cambodia
by Bong Burgundy » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:41 am » in Cambodia News - 2 Replies
- 1147 Views
-
Last post by tombraider
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:03 pm
-
-
-
Teach your children, nephews, cousins, extended family to swin.
by scoffer » Sat May 23, 2020 4:31 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 13 Replies
- 2492 Views
-
Last post by rektj00
Tue Jun 09, 2020 6:42 am
-