electrolyte

Hmm... some of those courses look like fun. Maybe I should go back for a grad degree in biochem instead of in education...

Unfortunately for my earlier point, I'm afraid I have to agree with you, RBH. (Three cheers for hindsight!) While in most of my biology/biochem classes, I could easily make sense of the facts by considering evolutionary theory (hooray Dobzhanksy), but upon contemplation, I have to admit that even the grad-level biochem courses I took didn't delve too technically into evolutionary theory. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the signature of evolution should be very clear to a biochemist (even Behe seems to agree), even if the biochemist doesn't have a great understanding of the specifics of the theory.

RBH is correct yet again. Ho-hum. :notworthy

Aegeri

I would (myself) think the following degrees would be relatively relevant to be 'qualified' to speak on evolution:

Anatomy, physiology, zoology (of course), paleontology, genetics, biochemistry*, ecology, microbiology ( ), cellular biology, physiology and other such 'biology' type subjects I may have forgotton to have.

For the record, many creationists have degrees in things like geology, chemistry, physics, engineering (it appears a large number of engineers are particularly interested in ID), medicine**, philosophy, history and such forth. Basically, they usually don't have degrees in a relevant field of biology and they very rarely have a degree anywhere in what they are talking about. This doesn't stop them continually harping on how 'wonderful' their degree is, like Sarfarti who snipes at everyone writing to AiG about 'qualifications' if he can. Of course, Sarfarti (IIRC) doesn't have a degree in any biology at all so his sniping about degrees doesn't speak well about him at all. He's no more qualified to write about biology than many of those he snipes at for not having a degree.

The majority of creationists I know of do have legitimate degrees however, although there are a few with some diploma mill degrees that are basically worth nothing, like Mr. Kent Hovind (I refuse to call him Dr. on principal).

*Our biochemistry department down here heavily emphasises evolution and in fact you have to take papers in genetics (which heavily emphasises evolution) to complete a degree. Depending on where you get the degree some may or may not be relevant.

**Medicine tells you how things work and such, but doesn't seek to teach individuals about how the structures got there or similar. Most medical students for example, have only a rudimentary understanding of how the antibiotics they use to treat desperately ill patients actually work let alone how bacteria adapt to prevent being harmed by them.

I find this rather surprising considering how much my Universities biochemistry department emphasises evolution, even in the parts they teach in undergraduate courses. Mind you, our biochemistry department is heavily associated with the geneticists so I guess it's more the geneticists 'polluting' the biochemists

Djugashvillain

He is even listed as Dr. Kent Hovind in the phone book, which is something that must be specifically requested. Yet, when the dubious nature of his doctorate is brought up, he says how unimportant degrees are in debate--which is true, though an odd thing to say for a man who goes out of his way to mention his credentials. He probably signs his name "Dr. Kent Hovind, doctorate in education, PhD".

Tigers!

If you mean Ken Ham then the QIT (http://www.qut.edu.au/) in Australia will be very unhappy at you for describing them as awarding bogus degrees. They are an extremely reputable educational institute.
Here are Ken Ham's qualifications
Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia. He also holds a diploma of education from the University of Queensland (a graduate qualification necessary for Ken to begin his initial career as a science teacher in the public schools in Australia).

Not as broad as other people's but he still needed to do the work.

Tigers!

Does that mean that if you don't have a degree in theology then you shouldn't comment on God in any way?

As to why engineers appear interested in ID, speaking as an engineer, I can say it is because we are trained to realise that 'things just don't happened'. They must be constructed according to a plan, randomness doesn't build things. Or aren't I allowed to say such heretic things?

(As I write this I am watching a show about fiddler crabs and their lives. Amazing, did they happen by chance, random occurences? Nah)

premjan

Maybe god imagined the universe (set all the universal constants) but then let physics and evolution do the trick.

butswana

Hell, to a creationist a AS or BS degree makes you a fucking scientist. It is after all an Associate/Bachelor OF Science is it not? So my BS EET makes me a scientist? Too bad my name isn't Steve!

Jet Black

degrees relating to what they are talking about.

Javaman

What you neglected to mention was his "Doctorate" which is the relevant point here:
You can comment on anything you want in life. If, however, you present yourself as an expert based on your advanced degrees or go out of your way to describe yourself as a 'Doctor', the issue of your qualifications should absolutely be addressed. It speaks directly to one's credibility.

Shenannigans! You are 'trained' that way? Where? What curriculum addresses that? You can say what you want but it shows that you don't understand the theory of evolution. You might want to go through the stickies.

Martin B

Yeah, I meant to put him in the irrelevant category. My bad.