Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.

Why does it matter what Bakker's position is, IDer, theistic evolutionist, agnostic evolutionist, atheistic evolutionist, or some combination there of? A particular person's belief, however steeped or unsteeped in science they may be, is irrelevant to the truth or untruth of evolution, ID, YEC, OEC. Thinking it is relevant is a classic case of the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". Kind of like thinking George Bush's opinion on ID means something just because he is the President. What matters is how well the data fit the falsifiable predictions of the scientific model being proposed (and if there are no falsfiable predictions, it isn't science). Peer review determines whether the conclusions of a particular individual are justified, not credentials, whether they be scientific, social, political, or religious. I always found it amusing that some creationists were touting the urban legend that Darwin had renounced his TOE on his deathbed and embraced Christianity. Even if it were true, it would make no difference. Darwin's theory stands or falls on its own merits, not on what Darwin himself may or may not have believed at the end of his life.

It may be semantics but the "argument from authority" or "appeal to authority" is never valid, it is a logical fallacy. By this we mean "it is true because Dr. So and So says it is true." No, it is probably true because Dr. So and So has done the relevant research (either on his own or reviewed the research of others or both)and has concluded from that research that it is probaby true. It is a subtle difference but it is a difference.

Quite, but this statement illustrates yet another logical fallacy. Just because one scientist criticizes the findings, methodology, or behavior of a second scientist, that does not mean that the major findings of the second scientist are invalidated. It might just mean (1) the first scientist personally dislikes the second one (2) the first scientist is a crackpot who likes to rock the boat or (3) the first scientist mostly agrees with the second scientist but wants him to refine his methodology or his conclusions to make the research more robust. In the case of Bakker and Dawkins, I suspect it is all three.

Would this be the same "Dr." Hovind whose "dissertation" from Patriot "University" "grew from 100 to 250 pages" AFTER he received his "Ph.D."?"My dissertation was originally about 100 pages. I continued adding material and it grew to 250 pages. Over the last 10 years I have constantly been adding material. It is now many hundreds of pages and will be put into book form as time permits."It is even funnier when people appeal to authorities whose basis for being an authority is a mail order degree.

Faith, please take this as friendly advice. This is the kind of statement that is often going to get you into trouble. First of all, most people don't like to be called names, even if the names do have a ring of truth to them or could be construed as "just an abbreviation." (e.g. "evo"). It is unnecessary to do this. You can say evolutionists or creationists or "advocates for ....." and convey the same meaning. "Evo", "crevo", "fundy", etc are offensive to some people. You can say "well they are just too thin skinned or PC" or whatever but the point is that you have inhibited communication rather than facilitated it. Sometimes what people label "PC" (which is another term I don't like) is just common courtesy. It is also probably best not to refer to whole groups of people anyway - because it is a form of stereotyping and not all evolutionists think the same on a given issue such as Biblical interpretation anymore than all creationists do.Second to say "so and so claims to believe in the Bible but doesn't really believe in much of it" is insulting. People have different ways of "believing in the Bible." Some are literalists, some think it is mostly metaphorical, some think some parts are to be taken literally and others metaphorically. I can believe in the Truth of the OT that it is a wonderful story of how God works with his people but not necessarily think that every jot and tittle is literally true in an historical sense. That doesn't make my "belief in the Bible" any less real from a literalist, just different. Remember that "Man looks on the outside but God looks on the heart." Believe it or not, some people who read the Bible as metaphor think that to read it literally cheapens it and causes one to miss the larger Truth. I don't necessarily think that but I do think it is a danger.edited quote box codesThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-11-2005 03:01 PM

Well that is kind of a "You are just too thin skinned; don't be so defensive" approach. While it is true that some people are too thin skinned and defensive when their positions are contradicted, labels and stereotyping are generally not helpful in promoting healthy debate. Obviously it is necessary to have SOME way of distinguishing the various positions of people - but it can be done in a respectful manner. Anyway the point is to focus on the argument, not individuals or groups of individuals. If we find ourselves generalizing about whole groups of people or trying to fit someone into a particular group, we are probably going to offend someone. And that will limit rather than enhance debate.

This is standard creationist boilerplate. What you are really saying is "Show me the transitional fossils."Ok here they are:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ