Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pangloss · 02-12-2002, 05:32 AM

The 'moderators' at the BB had been doing a pretty good job. Yet when it comes to Helen Fryman-Setterfield, there seems to be a bit of protection involved.

Responding to her drivel here:
<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=000111&p=2" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=000111&p=2</a>
the moderators decided that showing her misrepresentations and such was 'mockery' and 'sarcasm' and so reduced my 4 page reply to a series of ambiguous, erroneous 'points'.

My actual reply is posted here:

************************************

Quote:

HELEN:
Scott,
Glad you don't deny everything I say. Yes, I have read ReMine's Biotic Message, and reference it as well. His 'claims' are his conclusions based on the material he has presented. You don't agree with him and that's fine. I do, and that's fine, too. We are entitled to our own opinions.

You misrepresent ReMine's conclusions. I already provided a clear cut example of his 'conclusions' being supported solely by his assertion. Such conclusions are scientifically worthless. He did not, has not, and cannot provide a single document supportive of his claims regarding the number of beneficial mutations 'required' to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor. He has been asked repeatedly for years, and each time he merely repeats his baseless assertions from book. He presents no material indicative of this at all, so his conclusions, again, are unwarranted.
So, yes - we are all entitled to our opinions.

Quote:

You wrote: attempting to poke holes in some aspect of evolution, or pointing out issues of contention between evolutionists or unknowns is NOT physical evidence FOR creation.

First of all I would respond in kind to you mentioning that just because people in either the ID or creationist camps don't all agree with each other does not mean that they are not on the correct side of the fence. No one is checking their minds in at the door! But secondly, about poking holes in evolution not indicating creation - do you have a third option available? If not, then it is either one or the other and poking holes in the one is evidence for the other.

I have only pointed out intra-creation disagreements to show the shallowness of the creationist claims to the contrary. I certainly hope that we can now never again see a post of yours containing such irrelevant fluff.
The third option? How about "we don't know yet"? Of course, perhaps you hadn't noticed all of the holes poked into creationist's claims since day 1 - does that count as evidence for evolution?

Quote:

You asked about mathematical models regarding evolution. They are all over the place. Dawkins' "methinks" is one of them.

Here is one you can play yourself: <a href="http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/" target="_blank">http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/</a>

And this one just hit the news: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020208075727.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020208075727.htm</a>

This last one really does, to my mind, fit the category of "triumphant discovery of the obvious," and I wonder how much money they got to do it, but oh well�

Allow me to quote what you are claiming to be responding to:

Quote:

ME:
You miss the point. It is creationists, such as Dembksi and ReMine, that prefer their favorite mathematical scenarios to actual empirical evidence. There is a huge difference between mathematical models based on theoretical constructs and those based on data.

HELEN:
However, have you ever even bothered to notice, let alone count, the number of evolution
scenarios which are based purely on the mathematics of computer models?

ME:
No. Why don't you name some and explain how they are based solely/purely on mathematical models.

My comments stemmed form the fact that Dembski's is a purely mathematical construct, and ReMine's use of Haldane ignores actual data. It appears that you felt that any type of model at all was on topic, and this was not my intent. Your examples may very well be premised solely on mathematics, however, those models are not used, as best as I can tell, in actually doing research into the evolutionary process.
On the other hand, both Dembski and to a lesser extent ReMine are relying solely on mathematical constructs.

Quote:

Getting back to the topic - PLEASE show me the list of beneficial mutations you claim have been accumulating in humans. In fact I am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of professionals who would love to see that list! That would certainly be JUST as important to medical science as a list of the problematic ones!

I have already asked you to tell me what to look for. I was under the impression that repeated requests for things that have been explained cannot be presented is considered badgering.
I will try to provide to you this information when you provide me with:

1. proof that you read and understood Kimura's 1961 paper on natural selection adding information to the genome

2. a list of genetically linked disorders that are due to new deleterious mutations, that is, NOT disorders now linked to a genetic locus that have been around for decades or centuries that were previously attributed to some other cause

3. a solid rationale as to why you accept genetic analyses on small segments of the genome when they can be construed to be 'harmful' to evolution but opt for the "let's wait until all the genomes are sequenced" cop out when presented with evidence from genetics that creationism is in trouble.

Deal?

Quote:

And yes, I DO claim that sexual reproduction is not doing the job evolution claims it should by leaving so many horrid mutations in the human population. You repeated, "Harmful mutations in these genes will doubtless be selected against, beneficial changes will be selected for." And I can only point you to the PARTIAL list that NG had published and say, "Oh, really???"

Please do not take quotes out of context. What you extricated above comes from this exchange, your culled quote in bold:

Quote:

HELEN:
I am hoping dreadfully that you really did not mean that healthy people are that way because of mutations! If health were not our somewhat natural condition, we could not have survived even as long as YEC viewpoints say, let alone as long as evolution says we have!

ME:
Since mutation (all categories) provides the 'raw material' for evolution, I most certainly mean that 'health' is the product of mutation. The 'natural condition' as you call it is the product of what we can call the 'wild type alleles' that govern the processes involved in regulating homeostasis. Harmful mutations in these genes will doubtless be selected against, beneficial changes will be selected for.

It should have been obvious that I was referring to the scenario that I was briefly describing to account for 'health'.

I can point you to the same list from NG and ask you to explain to us all How many of these disorders used to be blamed on some other cause? How many of them are 'new', say, within the last few decades and are not linked to some recent environmental condition (pollution, for example)?

Once again, you simply erect a strawman argument. I never said and presented no such evidence that ALL harmful mutations are removed. Continuing to imply as much is simply a misrepresentation.

Quote:

And lastly, while you are claiming that health is one product of mutations/evolution, two thoughts enter my mind:
1. What on earth did any organism do without it?
2. Health is really the natural state of things in the biblical frame of reference, and life has degenerated since creation.

Do without what? Health? Are you implying that there is some general concept of 'health' that applies to all creatures under all conditions?
Are you conveniently ignoring the fact that pathogens evolve as well? It appears so.

As for your second baseless claim, I cannot address such a non-scientific statement. In order for this to be an historically viable claim, you will need to produce evidence that in fact health (your definition of it) has indeed been degenerating since biblical times.
By the way - I'm fairly certain a large number of those 'genetic disorders' in the NG list are alluded to in the bible�

Lastly, I would like to address this:

HELEN:
Yes, we know how the Egyptians quarried the rocks and where. But we do NOT know HOW the pyramids were actually built. If you think you do know, there are hundreds or maybe thousands waiting for your explanation here as well!.

This is interesting as just a few months ago, I saw a program on TLC on this very topic. Recently, a city was discovered close to the plain of Giza. It had bakeries, shops, apartments, etc., and probably was home to some 20,000 or more. Hieroglyphs indicate that the people that lived there were artisans, masons, laborers, etc. There were depictions of work gangs leaving for quarries and such.

It also had an engineer - and I know how creationists like to hang on the words of engineers - who went through construction techniques available at the time (no non-animal power, for example), and concluded that a work force of 20,000 could have built the great pyramid using simple ramping and other construction techniques in 12-20 years (the exact numbers may be a bit off - the TLC website still has (or had) a page on the program).

This is another of those odd attempts to claim that the ancients - who had no electricity, no substantial medicine, no powered anything - were somehow technologically and intellectually superior to today's humanity.

Nialler · 02-12-2002, 06:30 AM

Your reply was indeed offensive - if you choose to find rational debate offensive.

I would propose that any submissions to the Baptistboard should carry the condition that if *any* part of it is to be removed, then the whole submission should not be printed.

We are laying ourselves open to misinterpretation if we meekly allow others to censor our postings.

The creationists have a penchant for selecting the parts of a quote that support their argument; it's folly to let them have the same opportunity with our own words.

scigirl · 02-14-2002, 11:14 AM

Ok, I'm posting my latest to the BB here, just in case they edit it. . .

Hello all,

Marc stated, There are two very good peer reviewed journals; Technical Journal and Creation Research Quarterly that you will find have excellent articles and ongoing discussions on creation issues, some even have been from non-creationists. [...] Since evolutionist peer review journals reject with prejudice anything written from a creation standpoint, you will never see a creation paper written in one of their peer review journals.

I will try to find and read these journals on line. If you have a link, that would be helpful. I have a question for you though Marc, will these journals publish only evidence against evolution? If the answer is no, than how is this journal any less biased?

Warning: rambling thoughts from a scientist ensue:

One of the reasons I grow frustrated with the evolution/creation debate is that it tends to demonize both science and religion. I work in the scientific field, and have done so for the last several years. The idea that scientists are pulling some sort of "evolutionist conspiracy" is ludicrous. When you say "scientists," you are talking about a large group of people, encompassing all nations, cultures, and religions. When we say "The scientific community supports evolution," we mean scientists from the USA, pakistan, israel, russia, france, etc. We mean scientists who are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, and Buddhist.

In my department alone, we have several muslims, several christians (evangelical, lutheran, catholic, and mormon), atheists, agnostics, and various asian religions. We have republicans, democrats, and independants. In terms of politics and religion, there is very little that our lab would ever agree on, in order to pull off a vast 'conspiracy.' And Montana is one of the least diverse states!

What we do agree on, however, is that the scientific process is a good way to ascertain facts about science. If humans want to understand their world in order to make it better (such as curing disease, saving biodiversity, finding better ways to grow crops), they must first learn about this world, and how it works. Scientists are simply people who like to learn how the world works. That is about the only stereotype that will apply across the board when you say "All scientists. . . "

I hope I can put to rest the idea that there is an anti-religion evolutionist "conspiracy." Now, perhaps you think that scientists are all misguided. That may be true. But is it likely that scientists, who are the ones actually generating and studying the data, are more misguided about the scientific facts than the creationists? Consider the year in the life of froggie, a graduate student in cell biology:

1) Every friday I attend Journal Club. One graduate student presents a paper, and we critique it--from the methods to the conclusions. A variety of fields are covered--anything in biology is fair game. This process allows us to refine our critical thinking skills, as well as learn to critically evaluate published works--a very important part of being a scientist. Why is this important? Well, some reports about a similar topic give conflicting results. As a scientist, you learn how to read and review these papers to come up with a more "global" conclusion. Perhaps one paper that showed an increase in variable X were looking in mice, and the other paper was looking at humans.

I honestly feel that even my bachelor's degree with honors in biomedicine with a minor in biochemistry was not enough to train me to be a scientist. The background I learned was important (you have to know what cells are before you can work with them), but I did not really learn how to do science, or to evaluate science, until I went to graduate school.

2) Once a year I am required to give a formal seminar to the department. In this seminar, I present my hypothesis, my data, and my conclusions. Faculty then ask questions, which is one of the most important parts of the seminar. The questions are designed to find "holes" in my research, to make sure my conclusions are valid.

3) About once or twice a year, my data gets submitted (along with other data) to be published by a "peer-reviewed" journal. There are some flaws in this process. Unfortunately, because of human nature (or satan, whichever you believe

), people have been known to fabricate data. Also, there can be 'conflicts of interest' in the peer review process--let's say a reviewer comes across a paper very similar to their own research. They might reject the paper, than steal the ideas and publish it themselves! However, I feel the caveats of the peer-review process are outweighed by the benefits. Allowing your work to undergo intense scrutiny by educated peers I think is the best way for the process to go. In fact, I cannot think of a better way, although I can think of ways to improve the peer-review process. Incidentally, many creationists often bring up the few cases of fraud. They fail to mention that the fraud was detected by other scientists (who are also evolutionary supporters), not by creationists. Nothing makes a scientist more happy than proving someone else wrong.

4) About once a year, my lab goes to a scientific conference. This year, it's in New Orleans Woo Hoo! At these conferences, you go to various seminars pertaining to your field, and you attend poster sessions. You get to interact with a variety of other scientists to exchange information and ideas. Also, these meetings are a great rejuvenator for people burned out from the sometimes tedious work of science.

5) And just every day, I am talking with people in my lab, and other labs, and reading new articles, about my work. I am continuously evaluating and re-evaluating my knowledge and working hypotheses about neutrophils.

So, there are several ways to keep scientists in check. The theory of evolution has been subjected to these types of scrutinies by a very diverse group of scientists for over 100 years. And while it has been modified, and certainly added to, it has not yet been proven false.

In my experience with religion, you see the opposite of the above. There was never a question-and-answer session after my priest's homily. In fact, questioning the priest, and the Bible, was discouraged (if not outright forbidden). We all know that human interpretations of an event or a text can vary a lot from person to person. My experience as a scientist tells me that honest inquiry and critical thought is not just the best way to elicidate the truth, it is the only way.

The only creation research institution I am familiar with is ICR. The employees of ICR are required to sign a form stating something like, "I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and I will work to find data which supports that view." This procedure is an anathema to the way that legitimate science works. Imagine if a pharmaceutical company did the same thing: Let's say they are working on a drug which cures diabetes, and their employees are required to sign the following form: "I believe that Drug Z will cure diabetes, and my results will reflect that belief." I would never buy a drug from that company, ever! Requiring a "statement of faith" - either for OR against a theory - should not be done.

Another point I would like to make: Much of the evidence you will see for evolution was not gathered for the sole purpose of irritating creationists. Really, I promise!

Our lab, for example, studies the neutrophil. Neutrophils are a type of white blood cell which fight off bacterial and fungal pathogens. If you are born without functional neutrophils (such as CGD patients), you very often die at a young age, due to sepsis of normally harmless infections. However, in some diseases like arthritis, neutrophils can become over-activated, and cause tissue damage. Our lab is trying to figure out how neutrophils work, so we can tweak their responses as desired.

One of the ways we study neutrophils is to compare them in other species. Our lab has studied neutrophil enzyme sequences in several organisms, including buffalo! Now, this sequence data correlated with the suspected evolutionary phylogenies. But that was not the reason we sequenced the proteins--we are trying to find functional significance in the differences. Much of the genetic data you see which supports evolution was not sequenced to support evolution (it just happened to do so). This makes it even more unlikely that scientists fabricated their data. Remember--our lab is truly interested in the differences between buffalo and cattle neutrophils so we can design drugs to combat cattle and buffalo-specific diseases, like brucellosis. Lying about the sequence data "to make it fit evolution" would be a really dumb move on our part (not to mention unnecessary).

A lot of scientists are completely unaware, or mostly unaware, of the evolution-creation controversy, and therefore do not spend time trying to debunk some of the myths and false information that is out there.
A great many other scientists have better things to do, like try to cure cancer or arthritis. Sure, our lab could switch our goals from trying to cure disease to proving evolution. But why? I would much rather come up with a treatment for arthritis. My boss, who is an evangelical Christian, believes in Intelligent Design. But he also recognizes the validity of the evolutionary model, and he is using it to try and cure diseases like arthritis or brucellosis. He has realized that believing in God helps him as a person, but believing in evolution helps him as a scientist. He in no way feels conflicted, because in all cases, he is simply seeking answers, and using those answers to help us understand ourselves and our world. So please, quit making it sound like Christianity and evolution are opposites, because they clearly are not!

Thanks for listening, and if anyone has any questions about how scientists work, or how the scientific process works, please ask!

froggie

Coragyps · 02-14-2002, 11:32 AM

Dayumn, girl! Get into med school, get that MD, maybe get a PhD too if you want, but then PLEASE spend at least part of your time teaching! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

RufusAtticus · 02-14-2002, 02:03 PM

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Good post. They will probably reject it citing "inflamatory language" and "personal challenges." (Whatever that's supposed to mean.)

You should really post it to talk.orgins. You'd get a POTM nomination for sure.

-RvFvS

Arrowman · 02-14-2002, 02:21 PM

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

He-he; didn't really mean that - it's just that the "not worthy" emoticon is getting over-used here!

Seriously; an excellent post. Please make sure it gets preserved somewhere online. And what coragyps (wtf does that handle mean, anyway?) said - please become a teacher.

Automaton · 02-14-2002, 02:22 PM

<a href="http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html" target="_blank">CRSQ</a> is actually the closest the creationists have ever come to good peer-review. Most of the articles are even well-written, and you'll even see some critiquing other's work! However, the "beef" of the articles are exactly the same nonsense we've become acquainted to.

<a href="http://answersingenesis.org" target="_blank">"Technical" Journal</a> (formerly Creation Ex Nihilo "Technical" Journal) is the propaganda engine of Answers in Genesis. Most of the documents (read, pathetic wastes of time) on the AiG site are just reprints from their journal. Far from being technical, it is actually written for the mass audience with the illusion of being "scientific" or having at least a shred of credibility. Neither does it have anything to do with the peer-review process or science.

Seth K · 02-14-2002, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Automaton:
<strong><a href="http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html" target="_blank">CRSQ</a> is actually the closest the creationists have ever come to good peer-review. Most of the articles are even well-written, and you'll even see some critiquing other's work! However, the "beef" of the articles are exactly the same nonsense we've become acquainted to.
</strong>

Still, it is their policy to only accept articles accepting the "biblical" YEC viewpoint. And of course their common use of biblical authority to trump empirical evidence simply wont cut it in a real science journal.

Quote:

<strong><a href="http://answersingenesis.org" target="_blank">"Technical" Journal</a> (formerly Creation Ex Nihilo "Technical" Journal) is the propaganda engine of Answers in Genesis. [snip]</strong>

'Nuff said.

LiveFreeOrDie · 02-14-2002, 04:35 PM

Despite the censorship, I would encourage people here to post at BB. It can be frustrating, but the moderators are reasonably fair. I've found that if you avoid anything resembling a personal attack, especially sarcasm and rhetorical questions, then the moderators will generally let the post through. IMO it's actually a healthy challenge trying to get past them -- sort of like learning to fight with one hand tied behind your back.

Besides, that ignoramus Helen Setterfield spews more crap than any one person can deal with. Without any opposition BB will turn into the Helen show, which is a thought I find hard to stomach.

DireStraits · 02-14-2002, 06:21 PM

Besides, that ignoramus Helen Setterfield spews more crap than any one person can deal with. Without any opposition BB will turn into the Helen show, which is a thought I find hard to stomach.

DS: Well I can dig that, but I reckon the whole point of the new policy is to make sure that Helen is protected in her delicate sensibilities. Besides, look at how many posts she has replied to even AFTER the new policy.

If my hypothesis is correct, then I would expect CARM to adopt the same policy on the evolution board as has been adopted on Baptist Board.

Unfortunately, I cannot chack, because CARM is down for a while. Oh, wait a minute, wasn't BB down for about six weeks while they reviewed THEIR policies?

Stay tuned...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2002, 06:30 AM	#2
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	Your reply was indeed offensive - if you choose to find rational debate offensive. I would propose that any submissions to the Baptistboard should carry the condition that if any part of it is to be removed, then the whole submission should not be printed. We are laying ourselves open to misinterpretation if we meekly allow others to censor our postings. The creationists have a penchant for selecting the parts of a quote that support their argument; it's folly to let them have the same opportunity with our own words.

02-14-2002, 11:14 AM	#3
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Ok, I'm posting my latest to the BB here, just in case they edit it. . . Hello all, Marc stated, There are two very good peer reviewed journals; Technical Journal and Creation Research Quarterly that you will find have excellent articles and ongoing discussions on creation issues, some even have been from non-creationists. [...] Since evolutionist peer review journals reject with prejudice anything written from a creation standpoint, you will never see a creation paper written in one of their peer review journals. I will try to find and read these journals on line. If you have a link, that would be helpful. I have a question for you though Marc, will these journals publish only evidence against evolution? If the answer is no, than how is this journal any less biased? Warning: rambling thoughts from a scientist ensue: One of the reasons I grow frustrated with the evolution/creation debate is that it tends to demonize both science and religion. I work in the scientific field, and have done so for the last several years. The idea that scientists are pulling some sort of "evolutionist conspiracy" is ludicrous. When you say "scientists," you are talking about a large group of people, encompassing all nations, cultures, and religions. When we say "The scientific community supports evolution," we mean scientists from the USA, pakistan, israel, russia, france, etc. We mean scientists who are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, and Buddhist. In my department alone, we have several muslims, several christians (evangelical, lutheran, catholic, and mormon), atheists, agnostics, and various asian religions. We have republicans, democrats, and independants. In terms of politics and religion, there is very little that our lab would ever agree on, in order to pull off a vast 'conspiracy.' And Montana is one of the least diverse states! What we do agree on, however, is that the scientific process is a good way to ascertain facts about science. If humans want to understand their world in order to make it better (such as curing disease, saving biodiversity, finding better ways to grow crops), they must first learn about this world, and how it works. Scientists are simply people who like to learn how the world works. That is about the only stereotype that will apply across the board when you say "All scientists. . . " I hope I can put to rest the idea that there is an anti-religion evolutionist "conspiracy." Now, perhaps you think that scientists are all misguided. That may be true. But is it likely that scientists, who are the ones actually generating and studying the data, are more misguided about the scientific facts than the creationists? Consider the year in the life of froggie, a graduate student in cell biology: 1) Every friday I attend Journal Club. One graduate student presents a paper, and we critique it--from the methods to the conclusions. A variety of fields are covered--anything in biology is fair game. This process allows us to refine our critical thinking skills, as well as learn to critically evaluate published works--a very important part of being a scientist. Why is this important? Well, some reports about a similar topic give conflicting results. As a scientist, you learn how to read and review these papers to come up with a more "global" conclusion. Perhaps one paper that showed an increase in variable X were looking in mice, and the other paper was looking at humans. I honestly feel that even my bachelor's degree with honors in biomedicine with a minor in biochemistry was not enough to train me to be a scientist. The background I learned was important (you have to know what cells are before you can work with them), but I did not really learn how to do science, or to evaluate science, until I went to graduate school. 2) Once a year I am required to give a formal seminar to the department. In this seminar, I present my hypothesis, my data, and my conclusions. Faculty then ask questions, which is one of the most important parts of the seminar. The questions are designed to find "holes" in my research, to make sure my conclusions are valid. 3) About once or twice a year, my data gets submitted (along with other data) to be published by a "peer-reviewed" journal. There are some flaws in this process. Unfortunately, because of human nature (or satan, whichever you believe ), people have been known to fabricate data. Also, there can be 'conflicts of interest' in the peer review process--let's say a reviewer comes across a paper very similar to their own research. They might reject the paper, than steal the ideas and publish it themselves! However, I feel the caveats of the peer-review process are outweighed by the benefits. Allowing your work to undergo intense scrutiny by educated peers I think is the best way for the process to go. In fact, I cannot think of a better way, although I can think of ways to improve the peer-review process. Incidentally, many creationists often bring up the few cases of fraud. They fail to mention that the fraud was detected by other scientists (who are also evolutionary supporters), not by creationists. Nothing makes a scientist more happy than proving someone else wrong. 4) About once a year, my lab goes to a scientific conference. This year, it's in New Orleans Woo Hoo! At these conferences, you go to various seminars pertaining to your field, and you attend poster sessions. You get to interact with a variety of other scientists to exchange information and ideas. Also, these meetings are a great rejuvenator for people burned out from the sometimes tedious work of science. 5) And just every day, I am talking with people in my lab, and other labs, and reading new articles, about my work. I am continuously evaluating and re-evaluating my knowledge and working hypotheses about neutrophils. So, there are several ways to keep scientists in check. The theory of evolution has been subjected to these types of scrutinies by a very diverse group of scientists for over 100 years. And while it has been modified, and certainly added to, it has not yet been proven false. In my experience with religion, you see the opposite of the above. There was never a question-and-answer session after my priest's homily. In fact, questioning the priest, and the Bible, was discouraged (if not outright forbidden). We all know that human interpretations of an event or a text can vary a lot from person to person. My experience as a scientist tells me that honest inquiry and critical thought is not just the best way to elicidate the truth, it is the only way. The only creation research institution I am familiar with is ICR. The employees of ICR are required to sign a form stating something like, "I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and I will work to find data which supports that view." This procedure is an anathema to the way that legitimate science works. Imagine if a pharmaceutical company did the same thing: Let's say they are working on a drug which cures diabetes, and their employees are required to sign the following form: "I believe that Drug Z will cure diabetes, and my results will reflect that belief." I would never buy a drug from that company, ever! Requiring a "statement of faith" - either for OR against a theory - should not be done. Another point I would like to make: Much of the evidence you will see for evolution was not gathered for the sole purpose of irritating creationists. Really, I promise! Our lab, for example, studies the neutrophil. Neutrophils are a type of white blood cell which fight off bacterial and fungal pathogens. If you are born without functional neutrophils (such as CGD patients), you very often die at a young age, due to sepsis of normally harmless infections. However, in some diseases like arthritis, neutrophils can become over-activated, and cause tissue damage. Our lab is trying to figure out how neutrophils work, so we can tweak their responses as desired. One of the ways we study neutrophils is to compare them in other species. Our lab has studied neutrophil enzyme sequences in several organisms, including buffalo! Now, this sequence data correlated with the suspected evolutionary phylogenies. But that was not the reason we sequenced the proteins--we are trying to find functional significance in the differences. Much of the genetic data you see which supports evolution was not sequenced to support evolution (it just happened to do so). This makes it even more unlikely that scientists fabricated their data. Remember--our lab is truly interested in the differences between buffalo and cattle neutrophils so we can design drugs to combat cattle and buffalo-specific diseases, like brucellosis. Lying about the sequence data "to make it fit evolution" would be a really dumb move on our part (not to mention unnecessary). A lot of scientists are completely unaware, or mostly unaware, of the evolution-creation controversy, and therefore do not spend time trying to debunk some of the myths and false information that is out there. A great many other scientists have better things to do, like try to cure cancer or arthritis. Sure, our lab could switch our goals from trying to cure disease to proving evolution. But why? I would much rather come up with a treatment for arthritis. My boss, who is an evangelical Christian, believes in Intelligent Design. But he also recognizes the validity of the evolutionary model, and he is using it to try and cure diseases like arthritis or brucellosis. He has realized that believing in God helps him as a person, but believing in evolution helps him as a scientist. He in no way feels conflicted, because in all cases, he is simply seeking answers, and using those answers to help us understand ourselves and our world. So please, quit making it sound like Christianity and evolution are opposites, because they clearly are not! Thanks for listening, and if anyone has any questions about how scientists work, or how the scientific process works, please ask! froggie

02-14-2002, 11:32 AM	#4
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Dayumn, girl! Get into med school, get that MD, maybe get a PhD too if you want, but then PLEASE spend at least part of your time teaching! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

02-14-2002, 02:03 PM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Good post. They will probably reject it citing "inflamatory language" and "personal challenges." (Whatever that's supposed to mean.) You should really post it to talk.orgins. You'd get a POTM nomination for sure. -RvFvS

02-14-2002, 02:21 PM	#6
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> He-he; didn't really mean that - it's just that the "not worthy" emoticon is getting over-used here! Seriously; an excellent post. Please make sure it gets preserved somewhere online. And what coragyps (wtf does that handle mean, anyway?) said - please become a teacher.

02-14-2002, 02:22 PM	#7
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	<a href="http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html" target="_blank">CRSQ</a> is actually the closest the creationists have ever come to good peer-review. Most of the articles are even well-written, and you'll even see some critiquing other's work! However, the "beef" of the articles are exactly the same nonsense we've become acquainted to. <a href="http://answersingenesis.org" target="_blank">"Technical" Journal</a> (formerly Creation Ex Nihilo "Technical" Journal) is the propaganda engine of Answers in Genesis. Most of the documents (read, pathetic wastes of time) on the AiG site are just reprints from their journal. Far from being technical, it is actually written for the mass audience with the illusion of being "scientific" or having at least a shred of credibility. Neither does it have anything to do with the peer-review process or science.

02-14-2002, 04:35 PM	#9
LiveFreeOrDie Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA Posts: 77	Despite the censorship, I would encourage people here to post at BB. It can be frustrating, but the moderators are reasonably fair. I've found that if you avoid anything resembling a personal attack, especially sarcasm and rhetorical questions, then the moderators will generally let the post through. IMO it's actually a healthy challenge trying to get past them -- sort of like learning to fight with one hand tied behind your back. Besides, that ignoramus Helen Setterfield spews more crap than any one person can deal with. Without any opposition BB will turn into the Helen show, which is a thought I find hard to stomach.

02-14-2002, 06:21 PM	#10
DireStraits Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 81	Besides, that ignoramus Helen Setterfield spews more crap than any one person can deal with. Without any opposition BB will turn into the Helen show, which is a thought I find hard to stomach. DS: Well I can dig that, but I reckon the whole point of the new policy is to make sure that Helen is protected in her delicate sensibilities. Besides, look at how many posts she has replied to even AFTER the new policy. If my hypothesis is correct, then I would expect CARM to adopt the same policy on the evolution board as has been adopted on Baptist Board. Unfortunately, I cannot chack, because CARM is down for a while. Oh, wait a minute, wasn't BB down for about six weeks while they reviewed THEIR policies? Stay tuned...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.