RufusAtticus

Ex-robot, do you have any evidence that Dr. Allan considers special creation as an adequate explaination?

ex-robot

Looks like a bunch of people who refuse to actually read icr's list. If they did, they would know that most of the people on that list didn't just get a Ph.D. and that was it, Gish did plenty with his, etc. That thread was a while ago, so I don't know if ICR's faq about the list was up then. It answers all their ranting speculations.
Whole lot of ranting about the purpose of the book without even reading it. The jacket cover has this quote by Gould,

"professionally trained scientists, virtually to a person, understand the factual basis of evolution and don't dispute it"

The purpose of the book just like ICR's list is quite obvious. The preface goes into exact details about why the book was written. Someone at a lecture stated that they couldn't believe that any scientist with a PhD could believe in Creation.
Wow! Nine of them with most being dead. I wonder why it hasn't been updated with every single scientist on ICR's list and how it is all lies.
1992!!!

List of Publications by ICR Faculty and Advisors

"It should be noted that there is a significant limitation to these searches, in addition to the fact that they only cover the last 3-1/2 to 5 years."

Well, that is going to tell us a lot.
I'm surprised he didn't mention that Fliermans had already headed the lab that was first to isolate legionella from the natural environment, Lumsden had recieved the highest award in parasitology, Oller is one of the top linguists in the world, etc. If they had done a real search, they would have found plenty of articles. Oh well, .....

xr

ex-robot

Yes, he is in <i>In Six Days</i>.

xr

ex-robot

That is the issue? Could have fooled me. I assume familiar means a high priest of evolutionary biology and no person can become familair with the evidence and make an intelligent comment like Dr. Allan, etc.(that is of course unless they are a lay evolutionist)

xr

Oolon Colluphid

Huh? Is a reference to an article in Nature an appeal to authority? If I do so, rather than do the research myself, am I simply relying on what someone else has said? Where, exactly, should one get the evidence from to weigh for ourselves?

Don't you think that research into any area -- science, history... even theology -- would grind to a halt if everyone had to do everything themselves from scratch?

The difference with science is that it is in principle possible for someone to retrace the steps that previous experts have taken -- the evidence can be re-examined.

This is how, eg, Pons and Fleishman’s cold fusion was outed as optimistic rubbish.

Similarly, with one-offs such as fossils, though it may no longer be in the ground, the actual fossil can be re-examined.

Hence the microcrystalline analysis of the London Archaeopteryx showed that, contra Hoyle and Wickramsinghe, the feathers were genuine (and one feather passes under a bone -- try faking that!).

But don’t take my ‘authority’ for it: come see for yourselves at the Dino-Bird exhibition at the Natural History Museum.

With religion, the evidence, such as it is, cannot be re-examined. One has to take someone’s word for it.

Thus religious claims are always appeals to authority.

Science needs experts, because the stuff is complicated and needs lots of study to fully understand it. It’s no good getting a hominid skull and just going, “oh, it’s brain looks a bit small for its size, but its face is flat so it’s a human ancestor”. Here’s the sort of detail -- and detailed knowledge of anatomy -- that’s needed:

If someone is not already pretty conversant with, eg in this case, anatomical details, and previous discoveries -- ie an ‘expert’ -- what hope does such a person have in working out what a new discovery means?

So we have to rely on experts, ‘appeal to their authority’, as you would put it. The difference is that anyone can be an expert, with enough study of the evidence. Do please explain how studying, say, the bible (or the Koran, or L Ron Hubbard’s writings, or whatever), even if one does it all your life, can tell you if it's actually right?

Also note that in science, the experts are out to try and disprove what their colleagues say -- to see if it holds up really. If the other experts can't knock it down, it makes it more likely to be right.

So -- creationists take note -- to attack something in science, you have to know what you're talking about. Because those who do have already been looking for flaws. In evolution's case, they've been doing so for over a hundred years. All that has happened is that it's become ever more secure.

TTFN, Oolon

ex-robot

Nope, that isn't what I was saying. The jist of what I'm saying is that ICR's list and related material like In Six Days are not the appeal to authority that evolutionists make them out to be. They are acually refutations of evolutionists false claims, appeals to authority, etc.

I don't why you spent all this time talking about looking to other people's work/research, etc. I have no problem with that, and it is part of "weighing the evidence".

xr

Oolon Colluphid

Sorry, I must have missed the link. What “evolutionists false claims, appeals to authority, etc” did you have in mind?

Because that’s what you (seemed to be) criticising. Why do you think I bothered? Thus:

...and when we pointed out that the ‘authorities’ in question are experts who have studied it, you said:

If, as you say, you

then what exactly was your point? Whose work/research etc should we look to?

If you want an opinion about why your car won’t start, do you call a plumber and a journalist as well as a mechanic, so you can ‘weigh all the evidence’?

Is it an appeal to authority to consult a doctor about hot flushes or a headache?

Then why is it an appeal to authority to ask people who study biological diversity whether creation is an adequate explanation of it?

And what does it say about creation’s status that no such people are on ICR’s list? Why are the opinions of non-experts of any value? They have called nothing but plumbers and journalists, not mechanics.

TTFN, Oolon

RufusAtticus

Would you mind humoring me and give me some sort of insight into his chapter in In Six Days? I'm very curious what his comments are.

Dr. Allan appears to have the best chance the be the answer to my challege. Now I need to find out more about him.

The reason for this challege is that creationists love to claim that there is no evidence for evolution, yada yada yada. My challenge to find one (modern) population biologist that agrees is an attempt to get creationists to address such claims head on, i.e. is there anyone who actually works/worked with the data that sees special creation as being correct.

~~RvFvS~~

scigirl

Not having read the book, I can't really comment. Have you read the book in its entirety, or are you 'quote mining?'

You can read sample pages of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0385467923/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Leakey's book</a> at Amazon.com.

When he said humans have "free will," he was arguing against genetic predeterminism (not against evolution). <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0385467923/reader/6/102-8205137-6394508#reader-link" target="_blank">Click here</a> to read that quote in its context.

Even more interesting are his views <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0385467923/reader/10/102-8205137-6394508#reader-link" target="_blank">here.</a>
Wow I need to buy this book!

scigirl

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

KC

Don't try and find him at the University of Edinburgh. That is where he got his PhD, not where he works. As for being a population biologist, I'm not sure he is. He is a consultant on animal breeding, though.

Cheers,

KC