Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A quick question for evolutionists

NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 6:43:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'm not an evolutionist. I'm not a gravitationalist either. Are you a gravitationalist? Or is gravity "only" a theory to you?
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 7:11:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

Scientist are not obliged to sign a pledge of allegiance to the theory of evolution. If a professor in the corrosion of ferrous metals is a biblical fundamentalist I'd take his word for it about rusting, but not about the origin of life.

A life scientists who is a fundamentalist might also a good scientists. A 'legitimate' scientists is not defined by what he believes in at the outset but what he believes when the results of his experiments come in.

There are very few creationist scientists in the sense of people doing actual experiments to validate or invalidate the theory of creationism. There are plenty of touchline quarterbacks (I think that is the americanism) criticising the work of others, but not much original research gets done in the name of creationism, not even under its 'scientific' guise of 'intelligent design'.

I wonder if its possible to get a degree in ID. The exam would be easy - what ever the question was, the answer would always be 'the intelligent designed arranged it be so', so probably not.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 7:15:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

No. However they have no credibility on anything relating to evolution. Only about 1-3% of scientists are creationist while 97-99% are evolutionist and many of these creationists are not doing anything relating to evolution anyway. They are probably creationist because of a religious upbringing or a lack of knowledge of evolution because their research is on something else. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence from observation, genetics, and the fossil record and any reasonable unbiased expert on the subject will have to accept evolution just like the accept the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 7:21:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

Scientists can be as skeptical as they want, but unless they can find falsification in the theory of evolution, they are just blowing smoke, legitimate or otherwise.

That is what believers who deny evolution do, blow smoke.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 7:23:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?
NLC, it's not the result, but the methods.

All scientists are trained to question. Skepticism is part of the job. But the manner of scientific questioning is more accountable than the informal sort of excuse-making people make when they're in denial. People in denial try to make the other person accountable for their ideas, while being unaccountable themselves.

In science it doesn't work that way.

When a scientist proposes a model, he or she must ask: what significant, specific, falsifiable results are predicted by this model, such that, if these predictions didn't occur, this model would be false? That burden falls on the proponent of the model, and a model is only valid if it has such predictions. And then the experiment and observation begin. As that model begins to make predictions that verify its own correctness while falsifying other models, it eliminates contenders. Eventually if it's the only model standing among all the reasonable candidate models, it's accepted. Sometimes the verification process can be pretty fast. With relativity, it took physicists only a couple of decades to find the experiments that verified it, and falsified anything else. But sometimes it's slow. With evolution, it took thousands of scientist about ninety years to satisfy themselves that everything was happening as evolution would require, and that nothing else was left unexplained. Nowadays biologists are filling in the historical detail and still exploring some of the mechanisms, but common ancestry itself is beyond all reasonable doubt.

So there's already a very high level of accountability applied to candidate models. But the accountability extends to the questioners too...

When a model is being verified, while ever it's routinely making significant, specific predictions accurately, scientists are really only free to reject it if they can advance a concise alternative model that's equally or more accurate, and demonstrate its mechanisms. Scientists are free to question rigorously, but they're not free to dismiss a valid candidate model without something more specific, constructive and equally falsifiable that might do the job better.

And here's the problem. As a proportion of scientists, a small number do doubt evolution, but the only scientists who can critique it credibly are those working on producing a better, more predictive model.

But NLC, there aren't any scientists doing that.

Many of the scientists who doubt evolution aren't in working life-sciences, geology or paleontology, so their opinions are irrelevant: they couldn't produce a better model even if they tried.

Of the few evoskeptics working in life sciences and allied fields, none is actually producing anything better, or even talking about what they're working on and why it will be better -- they're arguing for the sake of disagreeing, as philosophers and lawyers do.

And worse than that, they're arguing in ways scientists ought not to do -- that is, they're appealing to the public, rather than arguing accountably to other scientists, in peer-reviewed journals where their own criticisms, counter-claims and experimental results can be critiqued.

So while in principle it'd be fine for life scientists to be evolutionary skeptics and still legitimate scientists, in practice the very low amount of evo-skepticism there is among scientists is neither very scientific nor very relevant. And in fact, virtually all of the supposed scientific 'debate' has been shamefully confected by fundamentalist evangelical communicators seeking to mislead the public. They said they were setting out to do it, and they've been doing it for two decades, with an awful lot of public confusion and intellectual damage, but not a single valid scientific result to show for it.

I'm happy to supply references, links and examples if desired.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 11:13:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

It is difficult if not impossible to be a biologist without accepting evolution.

Similar to how its extremely unlikely to find a geologist who believes in this young earth rubbish.
Meh!
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:24:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

You are not going to get a "quick" answer from an evolutionist, they like to use scientific words and phrases to sound like egg-heads, and in most cases the words are that large. and meaningless, that they stick in their own throat.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 2:58:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

When a list of scientist that were skeptical of Evolution was presented in another thread.
http://www.debate.org...

Dhardage said: "And all of them have declared that any fact the encounter that is inconsistent with their faith will be discarded thus destroying any credibility they may have had."

Notice he thinks any contention to evolution is religious bias. And he affrims that when a scientist is skeptical of evolution they lose all credibility.

I think this is the majority opinion. If a Scientist disagrees with Evolution on any large mechanic they are discredited, and ridiculed.

It's not even a religious issue. One example.

Lynn Margulis is an atheist who came up with the theory of endosymbiosis. That mitochondria were separate prokaryotic cellular structures that merged with larger cell walled creatures to produce eukaryotes.

Now this particular idea is in favor, and Margulis is cited as the "vindicated rebel" and such.

She was an agnostic,[13] and a staunch evolutionist. But she totally rejected the modern evolutionary synthesis,[9] and said: "I remember waking up one day with an epiphanous revelation: I am not a neo-Darwinist! It recalled an earlier experience, when I realized that I wasn't a humanistic Jew. Although I greatly admire Darwin's contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist.[24] She argued that "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create", and maintained that symbiosis was the major driver of evolutionary change.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...

There is no status quo that strikes back harder than Evolutionist. And while I see some great and honest Scientist in the field, the neophytes such as those in the media and this forum bare their teeth and strike back.

Among the community of Evolutionist, YES.. YES if a scientist is skeptical of evolution they are considered illegitimate.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 4:20:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 7:15:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

No. However they have no credibility on anything relating to evolution. Only about 1-3% of scientists are creationist while 97-99% are evolutionist and many of these creationists are not doing anything relating to evolution anyway. They are probably creationist because of a religious upbringing or a lack of knowledge of evolution because their research is on something else. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence from observation, genetics, and the fossil record and any reasonable unbiased expert on the subject will have to accept evolution just like the accept the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity.

ME: Before getting too deep, can someone define scientist?
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 4:28:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 4:20:18 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/1/2016 7:15:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

No. However they have no credibility on anything relating to evolution. Only about 1-3% of scientists are creationist while 97-99% are evolutionist and many of these creationists are not doing anything relating to evolution anyway. They are probably creationist because of a religious upbringing or a lack of knowledge of evolution because their research is on something else. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence from observation, genetics, and the fossil record and any reasonable unbiased expert on the subject will have to accept evolution just like the accept the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity.

ME: Before getting too deep, can someone define scientist?

PEW research polled scientists who belonged to AAAS and found that 98% of them believed in evolution. They didn't just ask people off the street.
http://www.pewresearch.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 4:56:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 4:28:27 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:20:18 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/1/2016 7:15:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

No. However they have no credibility on anything relating to evolution. Only about 1-3% of scientists are creationist while 97-99% are evolutionist and many of these creationists are not doing anything relating to evolution anyway. They are probably creationist because of a religious upbringing or a lack of knowledge of evolution because their research is on something else. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence from observation, genetics, and the fossil record and any reasonable unbiased expert on the subject will have to accept evolution just like the accept the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity.

ME: Before getting too deep, can someone define scientist?

PEW research polled scientists who belonged to AAAS and found that 98% of them believed in evolution. They didn't just ask people off the street.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

And ask the Atheist on this website and they will tell you the 2% have no scientific expertise in understanding evolution, and any comment they make on it is without out credit.

this is true for the 2% who are biochemist, geneticist and such. So the OP should be answered in the affirmative.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 5:53:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 4:56:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:28:27 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:20:18 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/1/2016 7:15:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

No. However they have no credibility on anything relating to evolution. Only about 1-3% of scientists are creationist while 97-99% are evolutionist and many of these creationists are not doing anything relating to evolution anyway. They are probably creationist because of a religious upbringing or a lack of knowledge of evolution because their research is on something else. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence from observation, genetics, and the fossil record and any reasonable unbiased expert on the subject will have to accept evolution just like the accept the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity.

ME: Before getting too deep, can someone define scientist?

PEW research polled scientists who belonged to AAAS and found that 98% of them believed in evolution. They didn't just ask people off the street.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

And ask the Atheist on this website and they will tell you the 2% have no scientific expertise in understanding evolution, and any comment they make on it is without out credit.

this is true for the 2% who are biochemist, geneticist and such. So the OP should be answered in the affirmative.

My wife is a scientist who really doesn't have much of a belief in evolution. She isn't a creationist but she tends to be skeptical about evolution. She grew up in a poor Chinese town and was raised in a Buddhist background. She is non-religious now.

She specializes in biofuels and chemistry and doesn't know much about evolution. That is probably why many of these 2% are creationist. I am sure most of them are real scientists, they are just not experts about evolution.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 6:02:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
So the OP should be answered in the affirmative.

The OP question being:

Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

The OP asks 'Do I believe a evo-sceptic isn't a legitimate scientist?' I don't think being an evo-sceptic automatically makes a scientist illegitimate. So I will ignore Myks advice and answer negatively, that being the true answer.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 9:16:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

Of course not. There are Chemists, Physicists who have no clue about evolution and dont know anything about biology. Cant expect them to understand, let alone have a valid opinion about evolution, anymore than I can comment with my limited knowledge regarding Black Holes to Steven Hawkings and expect him to take me seriously.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 10:27:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Is that an answer to the question asked? I'm pretty sure it isn't.

It is also slightly absurd, because by the same token physicsts and chemists can't comment on the validity of evolution either. They are to be barred from the debate which ever side they are on because "they are physiscists or chemists, not biologists".

But if we bar physicists and chemists - who are generally rather bright and well educated - then the debate about evolution will end up being held between taxi-drivers and shop-assistants.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 11:37:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 5:53:27 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:56:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:28:27 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:20:18 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/1/2016 7:15:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

No. However they have no credibility on anything relating to evolution. Only about 1-3% of scientists are creationist while 97-99% are evolutionist and many of these creationists are not doing anything relating to evolution anyway. They are probably creationist because of a religious upbringing or a lack of knowledge of evolution because their research is on something else. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence from observation, genetics, and the fossil record and any reasonable unbiased expert on the subject will have to accept evolution just like the accept the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity.

ME: Before getting too deep, can someone define scientist?

PEW research polled scientists who belonged to AAAS and found that 98% of them believed in evolution. They didn't just ask people off the street.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

And ask the Atheist on this website and they will tell you the 2% have no scientific expertise in understanding evolution, and any comment they make on it is without out credit.

this is true for the 2% who are biochemist, geneticist and such. So the OP should be answered in the affirmative.

My wife is a scientist who really doesn't have much of a belief in evolution. She isn't a creationist but she tends to be skeptical about evolution. She grew up in a poor Chinese town and was raised in a Buddhist background. She is non-religious now.

She specializes in biofuels and chemistry and doesn't know much about evolution. That is probably why many of these 2% are creationist. I am sure most of them are real scientists, they are just not experts about evolution.

It's part of the problem when you equate skeptical of evolution with creationist
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 12:40:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 11:37:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 5:53:27 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:56:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:28:27 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:20:18 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/1/2016 7:15:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

No. However they have no credibility on anything relating to evolution. Only about 1-3% of scientists are creationist while 97-99% are evolutionist and many of these creationists are not doing anything relating to evolution anyway. They are probably creationist because of a religious upbringing or a lack of knowledge of evolution because their research is on something else. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence from observation, genetics, and the fossil record and any reasonable unbiased expert on the subject will have to accept evolution just like the accept the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity.

ME: Before getting too deep, can someone define scientist?

PEW research polled scientists who belonged to AAAS and found that 98% of them believed in evolution. They didn't just ask people off the street.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

And ask the Atheist on this website and they will tell you the 2% have no scientific expertise in understanding evolution, and any comment they make on it is without out credit.

this is true for the 2% who are biochemist, geneticist and such. So the OP should be answered in the affirmative.

My wife is a scientist who really doesn't have much of a belief in evolution. She isn't a creationist but she tends to be skeptical about evolution. She grew up in a poor Chinese town and was raised in a Buddhist background. She is non-religious now.

She specializes in biofuels and chemistry and doesn't know much about evolution. That is probably why many of these 2% are creationist. I am sure most of them are real scientists, they are just not experts about evolution.

It's part of the problem when you equate skeptical of evolution with creationist

In reality almost all the evolution skeptics are creationists. Most of them are motivated by religious belief.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 12:51:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 11:37:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 5:53:27 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:56:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:28:27 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:20:18 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/1/2016 7:15:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

No. However they have no credibility on anything relating to evolution. Only about 1-3% of scientists are creationist while 97-99% are evolutionist and many of these creationists are not doing anything relating to evolution anyway. They are probably creationist because of a religious upbringing or a lack of knowledge of evolution because their research is on something else. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence from observation, genetics, and the fossil record and any reasonable unbiased expert on the subject will have to accept evolution just like the accept the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity.

ME: Before getting too deep, can someone define scientist?

PEW research polled scientists who belonged to AAAS and found that 98% of them believed in evolution. They didn't just ask people off the street.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

And ask the Atheist on this website and they will tell you the 2% have no scientific expertise in understanding evolution, and any comment they make on it is without out credit.

this is true for the 2% who are biochemist, geneticist and such. So the OP should be answered in the affirmative.

My wife is a scientist who really doesn't have much of a belief in evolution. She isn't a creationist but she tends to be skeptical about evolution. She grew up in a poor Chinese town and was raised in a Buddhist background. She is non-religious now.

She specializes in biofuels and chemistry and doesn't know much about evolution. That is probably why many of these 2% are creationist. I am sure most of them are real scientists, they are just not experts about evolution.

It's part of the problem when you equate skeptical of evolution with creationist

Creationists aren't skeptics of evolution, they would have to understand the subject matter, but they don't, hence they are simply deniers of evolution.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 1:57:00 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 10:27:25 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Is that an answer to the question asked? I'm pretty sure it isn't.

It is also slightly absurd, because by the same token physicsts and chemists can't comment on the validity of evolution either. They are to be barred from the debate which ever side they are on because "they are physiscists or chemists, not biologists".

But if we bar physicists and chemists - who are generally rather bright and well educated - then the debate about evolution will end up being held between taxi-drivers and shop-assistants.

Its not that they cannot comment on the validity of evolution. Its that they cannot comment on the validity of evolution in any professional capacity or manner.

A Chemist can comment on evolution, much like how a Chemist can comment on brain surgery. But should a chemist, who has no degree and doesnt specialize in the field of medicine, go toe to toe and argue against a seasoned medical doctor? Of course not.

If we bar chemists and Physicists from speaking as an authority about evolution, then the debate about evolution will end up being held between biologists and biologists; exactly how it should be.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 2:24:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 4:20:18 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/1/2016 7:15:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

No. However they have no credibility on anything relating to evolution. Only about 1-3% of scientists are creationist while 97-99% are evolutionist and many of these creationists are not doing anything relating to evolution anyway. They are probably creationist because of a religious upbringing or a lack of knowledge of evolution because their research is on something else. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence from observation, genetics, and the fossil record and any reasonable unbiased expert on the subject will have to accept evolution just like the accept the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the theory of gravity.

ME: Before getting too deep, can someone define scientist?

Not you.
Meh!
keithprosser
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:26:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
If we bar chemists and Physicists from speaking as an authority about evolution, then the debate about evolution will end up being held between biologists and biologists; exactly how it should be.

So shall we bar ourselves from the debate?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:43:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Postscript: The oroblem is not that Chemists and Physicists should be barred. Many of them are doubtless very knowledgeable about evolution. The problem is creationists with some sort of scientific qualification using it to promote deliberate falsehoods as authoritative.

We've all followed dozens of evo/creationist debates. In my experience evos don't always get it right, but that is almost always from making an honest mistake. Deliberate distortions and down right bare-faced fibbing is the norm for creationists with some scientific background. Less scientifically literate creationists are sllightly less blameworthy for parroting them.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:03:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

Out of curiosity, do you accept micro-evolution?
Meh!
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 6:53:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

You can be skeptical of evolution. But then you're going to need another scientific theory to explain life. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It's unfalsifiable pseudoscience for the most part, and where it is falsifiable it has already been falsified. A creationist "scientist" is not a legitimate scientist.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:59:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

Here are a couple of assumptions I would make:

1. A scientist that doesn't believe in evolution has questionable critical thinking skills. Even if it was related to his field of study, I would have serious doubts about scientist that argues the world isn't a sphere. An unrelated specific belief can becomes a general credibility issue.

2. When a scientist claims they don't believe in evolution yet cannot produce a falsifiable alternate theory, it communicates that either:
a. Their assertion is biased and they most likely have a religious background.
b. They don't understand evolution.

Either way, they should know they are not in a position to comment. If they are going to comment publicly about their skepticism about evolution without anything that can be verified using the scientific method, it shows a lack of respect for the scientific method. What is a scientist that doesn't respect the scientific method?
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:48:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:40:56 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
Do you believe a scientist who does not believe in (or is skeptical of) Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate scientist?

Evolutionists require allegiance to Darwinism to be considered a legitimate scientist. No skepticism allowed.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 5:03:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 2:58:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I think this is the majority opinion. If a Scientist disagrees with Evolution on any large mechanic they are discredited, and ridiculed.

Well duh, anyone who denies evolution should be discredited and ridiculed, that is, unless they can come up with a valid refutation of the postulates of evolution.

Why can't you and the other believers get this very simple concept through your thick skulls?

It's not even a religious issue. One example.

Lynn Margulis is an atheist who came up with the theory of endosymbiosis. That mitochondria were separate prokaryotic cellular structures that merged with larger cell walled creatures to produce eukaryotes.

Now this particular idea is in favor, and Margulis is cited as the "vindicated rebel" and such.

She was an agnostic,[13] and a staunch evolutionist. But she totally rejected the modern evolutionary synthesis,[9] and said: "I remember waking up one day with an epiphanous revelation: I am not a neo-Darwinist! It recalled an earlier experience, when I realized that I wasn't a humanistic Jew. Although I greatly admire Darwin's contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist.[24] She argued that "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create", and maintained that symbiosis was the major driver of evolutionary change.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...

There is no status quo that strikes back harder than Evolutionist. And while I see some great and honest Scientist in the field, the neophytes such as those in the media and this forum bare their teeth and strike back.

Among the community of Evolutionist, YES.. YES if a scientist is skeptical of evolution they are considered illegitimate.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 5:21:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 5:03:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/2/2016 2:58:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I think this is the majority opinion. If a Scientist disagrees with Evolution on any large mechanic they are discredited, and ridiculed.

Well duh, anyone who denies evolution should be discredited and ridiculed, that is, unless they can come up with a valid refutation of the postulates of evolution.

Why can't you and the other believers get this very simple concept through your thick skulls?

They don't want to. They don't care. They just want to bring religion "back" into science. (Any science done in the "good old days" was despite religion.)
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."