RufusAtticus

From the AiG newsletter that I got in my box today:

Dr David Menton

Profile of an 'evolution refuter'

• Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University [1966]
• Former research technician at Mayo Clinic. Rochester, Minnesota.
• Associate Porfessor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St Lousi (1966-2000)
• Elected 'Professor of the Year' in 1998 by the Washington University School of Medicine Class of 2000
• Profiled in American Men and Women of Science for almost two decades
• Author of numerous articles in technical journals on bone, wound healing and skin biomechanics
• President of the Missouri Association for Creation, St. Louis, Missouri

This is a great and typcial profile of an 'evolution refuter.' Look at the utter lack of qualifications in the field of evolutionary biology. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"

KC

The typical evolution refuter has a PhD?

KC

nogods4me

Well, his PHD doesn't make his weak assertions hold any more water than the other creationists.



Here is a link to some of his papers on creationism and refuting the evidence for evolution. Now calling them "papers" is being a little generous as some of them are a whopping 2-3 paragraphs long (designed, I suppose, for the average creationist's attention span)

He has all the standards in there: huge odds against "lucky" mutations, quoting SG Gould out of context, a veritable smorgasbord of crapola.

MrDarwin

Whereas if he were an evolutionary biologist, you would find him more credible as an evolution refuter?

I think it's easy to get hung up on somebody's credentials. In the case of somebody like Kent Hovind, I think it's appropriate. But in this guy's case, it does sound like he has some pretty respectable credentials, and probably knows a thing or two about biology (which I think makes him a rather atypical "evolution refuter"). After all, many significant contributions to evolutionary theory have been made by cell biologists, biochemists, geneticists, etc. I think nogods4me is on the right track: examine and analyze what he has actually written on the subject.

Jimmy Higgins

Well, I think that AIG is merely showing his "credentials" as a show of supreme authority. Because he has these credentials, what he says is true. All dissentors be damned. Nothing is written in their saying what he has contributed to the science field or what that has to do with his creationist idealogy. Personally I like to ask, what leaps have been made in the field of creation science. Haven't heard of any yet.

I'm also waiting for AIG to slip and do a thing for Safarti that claims he was the first time "Poster of the Month" at T-Web.

pz

Actually, those credentials make him even more suspect: how stupid do you have to be to actually get a Ph.D. in cell biology (even if it was in 1966), and walk away thinking evolution is false?

nogods4me

This Stupid:
Despite the overwhelming evidence that Neanderthals were simply a race of stocky humans, imaginative artists (with the encouragement of some evolutionists) have consistently rendered them as stooped "ape-men." For years, visitors entering Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History were obliged to pass between a frightening pair of life-sized statues of a very bestial appearing Neanderthal couple. Today, the Museum has finally replaced these erroneous statues with a more accurate representation of erect standing human-like Neanderthals. The old ones, however, were moved to the second floor near the dinosaur skeletons, where they will continue to fuel the imaginations of generations of school children, who will believe they have actually seen "ape-men"!

The whole article is here.

Try not to let a beverage squirt out of your nose while reading.

pangloss

Menton is basically an imbecile.

I had relayed an anecdote about an email conversation I had with him on PropagandaWeb, but it was immediately edited.

I had written him asking for a function of the auricularis muscles in humans.

He responded with what appeared to be a cut-and-paste of aq description of them, then an irrelevant blurb about facial nerve paralysis that did not even mention the muscles in question.

I responded, saying as much.

He replied with words to the effect of "My belief system is be superior to yours, so I am right and I don't want to talk to you any more".

This despite the fact that I never mentioned my "belief system" at all...

lpetrich

It must be said that it's possible to do a lot of good work in many fields of biology without ever bumping into the question of evolution, at least if one is careful to avoid doing so.

However, if one makes elementary misunderstandings, then one's competence does deserve to be questioned.

And there are some fields of biology where it is hard to avoid bumping into the evolution question. Creationists indirectly concede that by accepting the occurrence of "microevolution" -- and claiming that it is not "real" evolution.

MrDarwin

What I find a bit more incriminating than his background is when he got his PhD. I suspect we've learned a thing or two about evolution since 1966, but I also suspect he hasn't kept up with the literature.