4 ms·

Even better, try biologist creationists. They exist!

by gfodor 12y ago

hnriot 12y ago
I would contest that. They can be either but not both. They are either not very smart biologists or not very devout creationists. Or more likely just attention seekers.
- a-nikolaev 12y ago
  There is a famous one, Michael Behe. Not exactly a creationist, but an intelligen design advocate. http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe edit: He has a nice paragraph on his web page: >>Official Disclaimer My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.
- gfodor 12y ago
  Not true. I know someone who last I spoke was in graduate level cell biology and did lab work on brains at a top university, yet did not believe in evolution. In fact, I recall her citing her personal awe of the brain etc as evidence of intelligent design. Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence, the immense pressure of their peers, parents, and friends who have similar beliefs, and the underlying fear of death that motivates people to believe in an afterlife (and all the various attached beliefs from there) to allow compartmentalization of beliefs from knowledge.
  - hnriot 12y ago
    "Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence" - right, that pretty much proves my point, you friend is not a scientist.
joeclark77 12y ago
Your belief in pure Darwinism, 7-Day Creationism, or any theory in between, really doesn't have any impact on real-world biology or any of its applications (anatomy, physiology, medicine, agriculture, ecology, biotech, the creation of cyborg supersoldiers, etc, etc). I think real scientists are more interested in testable hypotheses about "how that thing works" than in untestable, unprovable claims about "how that thing got there".

Even better, try biologist creationists. They exist!

by gfodor 12y ago

Even better, try biologist creationists. They exist!

I would contest that. They can be either but not both. They are either not very smart biologists or not very devout creationists. Or more likely just attention seekers.

a-nikolaev 12y ago
There is a famous one, Michael Behe. Not exactly a creationist, but an intelligen design advocate. http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe edit: He has a nice paragraph on his web page: >>Official Disclaimer My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.
gfodor 12y ago
Not true. I know someone who last I spoke was in graduate level cell biology and did lab work on brains at a top university, yet did not believe in evolution. In fact, I recall her citing her personal awe of the brain etc as evidence of intelligent design. Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence, the immense pressure of their peers, parents, and friends who have similar beliefs, and the underlying fear of death that motivates people to believe in an afterlife (and all the various attached beliefs from there) to allow compartmentalization of beliefs from knowledge.
- hnriot 12y ago
  "Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence" - right, that pretty much proves my point, you friend is not a scientist.

joeclark77 12y ago

Your belief in pure Darwinism, 7-Day Creationism, or any theory in between, really doesn't have any impact on real-world biology or any of its applications (anatomy, physiology, medicine, agriculture, ecology, biotech, the creation of cyborg supersoldiers, etc, etc). I think real scientists are more interested in testable hypotheses about "how that thing works" than in untestable, unprovable claims about "how that thing got there".