Quality Control the Gold Standard

quote:

---

The public from age 3 to 30 is pillaried with evolutionary dogma from every avenue in American life.

---

That's quite a claim, there peach. Maybe you can help me realize what you seem to be so sure of, coz I sure don't see it from where I'm sitting.Please indicate where Evolutionary Theory is crammed down people's throats constantly during the following avenues of American life:Preschool/daycare
Church/mosque/temple attendence
Paying taxes
renting a home/paying a mortgage
getting a physical examination
attending the theater/cinema/concert
leaning to read/do mathematics
larning to operate a motor vehicle
getting married/divorced
getting a job
going on vacation
learning to a sport
getting a haircut
going shopping
watching television
surfing the internet

quote:

---

See evolutionary theory is so non-mathmatical

---

Oh, really? That's quite a claim, Peach.The following is called "Ewens' Sampling Formula" and is used in quantitative Population Genetics.Population Genetics uses Evolutionary Theory and combines it with Genetics. If Evolutionary Theory is so "squishy", then how is it that it uses this formula?Please explain.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-13-2006 04:50 AM

So, do you agree that Evolutionary Theory is NOT "non-mathematical?

So, what professional scientific work has Gish done since he was a student in California?What new advances has he contributed to the body of scientific knowldge?I'm talking about peer-reviewed papers which have spawned further research or have resulted in new techniques or technologies.

The Origin of Species is not the totality of The Modern Synthesis, any more than Galileo's early work is not the totality of Modern Cosmology and Astronomy.So you agree that The Modern Synthesis is NOT non-mathematical?

Excellent.What has he published since he became a Creationist, and what has he published using Creationist concepts?IOW, how productive has he been as a professional scientist using Creation Science?

quote:

---

ONce he became a creationist formally by employment he was blackballed from any evolutionary publication as is everyone else.

---

Submissions for scholraly journals are usually annonymous, so it is quite possible for anyone to publish a journal article. All they have to do is produce work that is of a certain standard of quality.They don't even have to be a professional scientist, as a little 10 year old girl named Emily Rosa who's work was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) demonstrates.Behe continues to publish in scholarly journals even though he is a proponent of theistic evolution of a sort.There's no black balling.

quote:

---

Are you saying he was once a talented, well educated, productive and useful scientist but upon becoming a creationist he bacame a useless, moron.

---

I am not saying he became a moron.I am saying he ceased being a scientist.

quote:

---

Life has phases each of which has its validity.

---

Indeed.Gish left behind any semblance of his scientific life long ago, yet continues to use his long-past history of Biology work to impress people who are uninformed in the science he mangles.

quote:

---

Which includes the defeated pseudo-scientists (alias for evolutionists) he debated for thirty years prior to his retirement.

---

If Gish's scientific evidence was so incredibly damning to Biology, then why didn't he publish his incredible evidence in the professional journals annonymously?If he had some revolutionary new scientific theory that had turned what we thought we knew about Biology, Genetics, and Biochemistry on its head, why didn't he use all of the donation money he got from supporters and do the research which would validate it?Real scientists don't spend their time lying in order to gain religious converts using dishonest tactics.For just one of many examples consider that Gish repeated false claims for years regarding the bombadier beetle even after being literally shown, in public, that his claims were false.

quote:

---

Einstein spent less than 5%of his worklife in a lab and Hawkings even less yet they are considered 1st class scientists... theoretical physicists.

---

No shit, theoretical physicists spend little time in the lab. They don't do lab work at all.Biochemists, however, do most of their work in labs.How come Gish left the lab decades ago if he really wanted to contribute to science?(Also, it's "Hawking", not "Hawkings").

quote:

---

Gish read prodigiously,

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

maintained his scientific societal memberships

---

Irrelevant. You pay a membership fee for most of them. If I wanted to use my past credentials to influence gullible people to believe I had some kind of scientisfic standing, I'd maintain them too.

quote:

---

and wrote a number of books on his views all with impeccible footnotes and references.

---

You say that as if getting the footnotes and references right in a book that one has written is some kind of major accomplishment instead of the bare basic standard that any undergraduate should be able to do.That Gish is notable among Creationists for managing this minor task speaks volumes for the usual level of scholarship among these authors as a group.This points up another aspect of why these footnotes and references are so often absent from such books, and why we know that Gish stopped using any scientific rigor in his work long ago. When one goes to the trouble to look up the references and footnotes in Gish's books, one can quite frequently discover that he has misunderstood the source material or misquoted it.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2006 05:26 PM