I was really surprised to discover this year that a widely respected paleontologist who specializes in dragonfly and damselfly fossils is associated with the Discovery Institute.Several of my colleagues, including some who co-authored papers with him, were also shocked to find out that he rejects Darwinism and believes in ID.
I am unsure if this has noticeably influenced his research.
My understanding about the Discovery Institute is that people associated with it have to sign some sort of declaration that belief in the bible overrides scientific results, or something similar.
No wonder Faith is interested in the results. That sort of thinking makes no sense to me, and I am a believer.
I would suspect it is something like the Statement on Inerrancy which says where there is a conflict God's word is to be affirmed over any scientific claims. Which does make sense to me and should make sense to anybody who is really a believer.
am going to put you on the spot, and I hope that you answer me....but if you don't it will only fit a pattern of ignoring anything that challenges your belief.
Wow what a piece of tendentious snark THAT is. And it's not true either, it's one of those false accusations people throw at me, and you are just playing to your unbelieving friends by aping them, since I know you don't understand anything about any of these things.
How is it that you always ignore the requests of EvC members to provide evidence for your claims regarding the science of Geology and age of the earth?
I don't. I've given plenty of evidence for my claims about Geology. If you mean challenges about claims I don't make, for instance the age of the Earth, it's because I don't make scientific claims about that, because I don't feel I have enough understanding to make them. And I've said so quite clearly. I have certain topics I pursue because I believe I understand them well enough to argue them and I provide lots of evidence for them. Where I don't have a scientific point of view I simply take the position of the Statement on Inerrancy, that God's word stands nevertheless, expecting that eventually there may be a scientific answer as well.
Also....do you believe that God has allowed secular science to be deceived due to the fact that they won't put their beliefs ahead of dispassionate evidence?
Huh? It's simple: I think they are wrong, I'm not looking for snarky explanations for why they are wrong. I'll even say they are honestly wrong, they believe in what they are saying. But I believe they are wrong nevertheless.
And in the future I may well ignore you, Phat, whether you do that particular snark thing on me or not, because I don't like your attitude.
The problem is that science builds on previously accepted findings, and since the findings that fit with the ToE are accepted it is very possible that scientists working from that model will interpret their own work in a way that affirms the ToE, while creationists who don't accept the established findings will come to different conclusions based on their different assumptions.
For instance, if you believe the dragonfly has evolved over hundreds of millions of years you are going to think of its current form in different terms than if you believe it was created no more than 6000 years ago, or perhaps microevolved from an insect Species that was appreciably different at Creation or perhaps at the time of the Flood. If you believe that mutations are the source of normal alleles you will think differently about all creatures than if you believe the DNA was built into a Species at Creation. If you believe that fossil dragonflies and damselflies record what lived before the Flood rather than being the result of an evolutionary history that goes back millions of years, you are going to have a different view of the current species as you encounter them.
I can't guess how these differences would play out in a particular research project but it's pretty clear that they could lead to very different conclusions. Even from the same undisputed set of observations or facts.
Since scientific journals adhere to the accepted framework of the ToE, they are not going to consider anything that comes to them from the creationist point of view, at least if it involves the kind of assumptions I've mentioned above. That is, the scientific thinking IS different even if the basic facts are the same wherever these different assumptions are important to the research.
All I meant was that I'd need to know something about a particular research project to consider whether or not the assumptions of YEC would affect it. They wouldn't in all cases, but wherever the time factor is considered to be relevant they might.
You are missing the point. I think there's sufficient evidence for the young earth but the journals don't, just as you don't. So the young earth is an assumption in YEC science that is always going to disqualify any scientific work that assumes it from publication in the standard journals.
microevolved from...that was appreciably different
*snort* Words, eh! What are ya gonna do...
I should remember not to use the term "microevolution" and instead stick to "variation within the Kind or Species." Yes there can be dramatic differences between variations even on that level alone, though not structural differences.