Reasons for Creationist Persistence

You know, it's not unreasonable to require certain standards to be met before we hand out degrees and certifications. I doubt you'd react negatively to a medical school that declined to certify a medical student who wanted to get a degree without renouncing their fervent religious belief in "Spleen-is-located-in-the-leg-ism", because spleens are not located in the leg; they're located in the abdomen.Paleontology is a science to which evolution directly speaks, and which doesn't make any sense except in the light of evolution; I don't see how it's any more reasonable to protest a dilution of academic standards in this case than in a case, say, where a geographer wanted a degree in geography at the same time as he proclaimed his deep belief in a flat Earth.

Not to be pedantic but Marcus Ross met the criteria ordained for the conferral of the doctorate. An accredited university obligates certain requirements which Dr. Ross met...said university performs it's established role of conferring a degree upon the aforementioned, and the degree is protested by many within the scientific community as being underservedly awarded. Now I ask you, when the established criteria are met, how can the degree be unmerited, in any sense of the word? The disturbing aspect is that you likely agree with those who criticize his legitimacy...n'est-ce pas?

By the same reason you can commit a crime that there's no law against. Some things are just so stupid or wrong that nobody thinks in advance to make a rule against it. Like, say, giving a paleontology degree to someone who rejects the entire field of paleontology. Or the President firing 8 prosecutors in order to manipulate the Justice system for political ends. (Just as an example.)But, then, I'm a moral relativist (and of Chaotic Good alignment.) I don't believe that the sets "What is Bad" and "What is Against the Rules" are identical.

The issue of whether the PhD should or should not be rewarded is big enough to be a separate thread. Please drop it in this one.It shouldn't matter here as one person hardly makes a paradigm shift.

How about addressing this from my Message 79: The question this thread poses is why creationists are so persistent after being on the losing side of the scientific debate time and again at sites like this one. The most significant reason is that being wrong about science isn't what matters. What matters to creationists is reducing the treatment given evolution in public schools, and in that creationists are succeeding very well by creating doubt about evolution in the public mind.--Percy

This particular denomination is renowned for its efforts in medical, scientific advancement.Without science and understanding its components, nothing of what they do would be possible. At LLU, Dr. Bailey put a baboon's heart into a girl. Gruesome, isn't it? Well, I used to be short then I grew some. Which is a good approach to science, short and with study we grew some.
Departments/offices* Biomedical Research and Graduate Programs
* California Tumor Tissue Registry (external site)
* Cancer Institute
* Clinical ministry research: faculty | student
* Earth and biological sciences
* Epidemiology and biostatistics
* Microbiology and molecular genetics
* National Medical Technology Testbed, Inc.
* Neurosciences - Zhang Neuroscience Research Laboratories
* Orthopaedics (Department of)
* Periodontics
* Plastic surgery
* School of Medicine Basic Sciences
* Sponsored research (LLU campus access only)
* Tribology lab
* UrologyCenters* Behavioral Medicine Center, LLU (research opportunities)
* Biomaterials Research Center (Dentistry)
* Breast Health Center
* Christian Bioethics, Center for
* Fertility and In Vitro Fertilization, Center for
* Health Research, Center for
* Joint Replacement, Center for
* Pain Management, Center for
* Perinatal Biology, Center for
* Prehospital Care, Education, and Research, Center for
* Proton Treatment Center
* Spiritual Life and Wholeness, Center for
* Transplantation InstituteStudies* Adventist Health StudyPresentations* Vegetarian nutritionPoliciesPage not found | Loma Linda University HealthSo far as science is concerned, they are by no means alone in the Christian world. I for one see no conflict between science and religion. Those who do will just have to live with being ignorant.Thank you Kuresu.

Hi Ringo. Here's a list of close to 200 from AIG, a number of whom should fit the ticket as scientists. Abe: All on the list are doctorates. Bios | Answers in Genesis Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Hi Buz. Glad you're still keeping an eye on us. Thanks. Now, the next step would be a list of their peer-reviewed papers that refute evolution, an old earth, etc.(Just one comment on one example that I'm somewhat familiar with: Dr. Steve Austin has a legitimate Ph.D. in geology. He also has one (1) peer-reviewed paper that I could find. It has nothing to do with the evolution/creation controversy. He also has a long litany of appallingly bad "science" to his "credit".)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

i'm sorry, but I don't get the "thank you kuresu". maybe my brain just isn't working right now.

I'm assuming its to your Msg 35 of this thread. You said he didn't seem the typical fundy of jar's Cult of Ignorance.

Uh, Buz, did you bother to read that list?Lots of engineers. Mathematicians and computer science. MDs, psychologists, dentists, a plastic surgeon. A linguist. A philosopher. And Food Science. What the frak is "food science" and what could it possibly have to do with evolution? For that matter, what do any of those fields have to do with evolution? Why didn't you include Ralphie the bus driver? He belongs on that list just as much as those guys did.Now, in a creationist newsletter I did once see a claim printed in all seriousness, that scientists are unable to explain how food could have possibly evolved to taste good. Maybe the creationist "Food Scientists" were that source of that particular howler.How many would still be on that list if you scrubbed it of all that chaff?And what about two of the geologists, Steve Austin and John Morris. Have they ever actually worked in the field and had to deal with real geological facts? Austin's doctorate was paid for by the ICR, during which time he wrote creation-science articles under the pseudonym of Stuart Nevins (as I recall). Since earning his doctorate, he's continued to work for them where his specialty appears to be to research how to take samples that would yield bogus dates, then go out and collect those samples, submit them to a lab, and publish an article that those samples yielded bogus dates.Glenn R. Morton is not on the list, since he's a former YEC who went to work in the field as a petroleum geologist and, along with several ICR-trained geology graduates he had hired, suffered a severe crisis of faith from having to deal with rock-hard geological facts that "creation science" had taught did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. Shortly before being driven to the verge of atheism by "creation science", he presented his findings at an International Conference on Creationism. Among those directly challenging his presentation was John Morris who presented himself as a "petroleum geologist". Morton asked him what oil company he had worked for. Well, um, none, but Morris did teach a university course on petroleum geology for one semester.What's the story on the other geologists in that list?Also, how many of those doctorates are real? I notice that Harold Slusher is on that list; his doctorate is honorary. When I looked, it wasn't even mentioned by the University of Texas at El Paso where he teaches in the Physics department (and doing a lousy job of it, according to one of his students who has contacted me).Now, Dr. Kurt Wise is a palaeontologist who had studied under Stephen J. Gould. He had been a YEC since childhood. In an interview with him posted years ago on Answers in Genesis (I don't know if it's still there), he stated that his belief in YEC and rejection of evolution is explicitly based on his faith in the Bible. He stated that if you just look at the scientific evidence then it overwhelmingly supports evolution and cries out for evolution. But because he'd have to cut so much out of the Bible were evolution true (one day he did literally take a pair of scissors to a bible), he has to reject evolution. Despite the evidence. Kurt Wise (no relation to myself, BTW) had long had a reputation of being one of the few honest creationists and often had to take his fellow creationists to task for the falsehood of their claims. It seems that he has since allied himself with the ICR, so I don't know how well he has been able to retain his honesty and integrity.

Hi Wise one. Ringo called for a list of creo scientists. He did not specify. AIG provided the list for what it's worth. I didn't say all were scientists. I said there should be some on the list who fill the ticket. I don't know who are bonafide and who are not. I assume some do fill the ticket as bonafide creo scientists in answer to Ringo's call. It would be quite a task to check them all out. Thanks for the info you took the time to get up.I do know that the ICR folks have done field research on the Grand Canyon and Mt St Helens et al. I have videos of those. I also have videos and the book of ID creo Dr Lennart Mollar, Swedish marine biologist who does marine archeological stuff along with his biological work. He photographed and researched evidence in the Gulf of Aqaba and region relative to the Exodus.A lot of archeological and other science projects have been done and are ongoing by creos, some doctorates and others all the way up the credential ladder which I'm not apprised on.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

They also play fast and loose with the facts in those videos, not even coming close to the truth, and those videos are great examples of trying to con the gullible.There is NO Science in those videos, only shell games. But worry not. They got their money which is all they wanted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I did, actually, in Message 52:

quote:

---

(Just so you don't accuse me of moving the goalpoasts, make that: people who do science in biology-related fields and come up with results that conflict with evolution.)

---

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That interview with Kurt Wise'To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn't reject it.' At that point he decided his only option was to reject evolutionary theory ...He is more honest than the rest of them.Apart from evolution, Dr Wise says that one of the things that has really bothered him is finding creationists who fall into the trap of dismissing justified criticism. He said he has presented data to point out areas that some of them needed to change, and it was either fobbed off or was still being repeated next time he saw them.[/i]Here he is on intermediate forms:Darwin's second expectation -- of stratomorphic intermediate species -- has been confirmed by such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and lycopods),Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation -- of higher taxon stratomorphic intermediates -- has been nicely confirmed by the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals and the phenacodontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation -- of stratomorphic series --- has been beautifully confirmed by such examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (e.g. the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series. The existence of stratomorphic intermediates of the general type expected a priori by macroevolutionary theory (above the level of species) should be acknowledged by creationists for what it is: very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. It certainly CANNOT be said that the traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds." (Kurt Wise, Towards a Creationist Understanding of 'Transitional Forms, CEN Technical Journal 9 (1995) p. 218-219)Apparently he hopes to work round them in some way.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.