very prominent people with suspicious credentials

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by BigLie, Nov 5, 2003.

  1. BigLie

    BigLie New Member

    While some of the degree's were questionable, the blog is clearly an evolutionist trying to discredit creationist by questioning their credentials instead of debating their position. Attacking the person and not their position is a classic sophomoric attempt at winning an argument. Beyond that, the sites definition of degree mill is wrong. "A degree mill is defined as any degree-granting body that is not accredited by a federally recognized accreditation body." Yet the author sites Bear's Guide in several places. I don't recall Dr. Bear defining a degree mill that way.
  2. bo79

    bo79 New Member

  3. jon porter

    jon porter New Member

    I would hesitate before calling any of the people listed on this rather old website (easily 5 or 6 years years ago) "prominent." But I don't move in creationist circles...
  4. jerryclick

    jerryclick New Member

    For What It's Worth dept: Macroevolution has never (yet) been successfully demonstrated in a controlled setting. Fruit flies, for example, can be made to evolve into purple fruit flies, but they have never been made to evolve into pigeons. Missing Links are still just that, missing. Not to say that evolution may not be a correct theory, just that it has not yet been demonstrated.
  5. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    No, they are questioning the degrees in addition to debating their positions. The link is to one page on a large website.

    That's not what's happening here. These people are using bogus credentials to make themselves appear to be authorities in the field. If their argument could stand on it's own, why use the fake credentials?

    If a bunch of people with degree mill Ph.D.'s in mathematics claimed that 2+2=5, I think it it would be appropriate to not only question their claim, but to also question their credentials. This is the same thing.
  6. Tradgrad

    Tradgrad member

    Hardin-Simmons University is Accredited by:
    The Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and
    Schools (1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097: Phone 404-
    679-4501) to award Associate, Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees,
  7. cmt

    cmt New Member

    I agree with you 100%. However, this analogy is flawed. The clear deductive logic you are implying (2+2=4/5) cannot be used as an analogy for the creation/evolution debate. It is simply, not that simple.
  8. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Ahh, but it is. Unless you use non-science to interfere with the science.
  9. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    Okay Rich, a very strong argument can be made for the existence of evolution, however; The underlying processes behind evolution are not a simple case of 2+2. Perhaps we should remember Newton's law of gravitation, the law's widespread acceptance as fact, and then new studies that (partially) refuted the law's applicability in all cases (Einstein). Although science is the closest we have to 'truth', and although I believe it is the correct way to try to find 'truth', it isn't necessarily the whole 'truth'.

  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I said "science," not "truth."
  11. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    You said (implied) that it (evolutionism v. creationism) is as simple as 2+2 unless non-science interferes.
    I said (implied) that even with a science centric focus, issues as complex as this are never that clear cut.
    You said, "I said 'science,' not 'truth.'"
    I say, "HUH?!"

  12. cmt

    cmt New Member

    Ahh, but it is not. Rich, there is a reason that it is called the evolutionary theory. 2+2 is not a theory by any stretch. The lacuna between the two is simply too far.
  13. dave750gixer

    dave750gixer New Member

    2+2=5 isnt too bad as analogies go in my opinion. Evolution is only a theory but the fruit flies to pigeons analogy is much worse!

    Evolution is a theory which fits the evidence available. There may be wrinkles in it that we do not understand correctly but there is no evidence available which refutes it. The extentions to evolutionary thory made since Darwin. Particularly the theory of punctuated equilibria by Gould et. al. are analogous to the extentions to gravitation by Einstein. They do not disprove the theory only modify it to be closer to the truth under more circumstances. Punctuated equilibria and the vagaries of statistics also remove the need for us to find "missing links".

    Creationism however seems to directly contradict much of the available scientific evidnce. It could of course be argued that the "evidence" was placed there deliberately by a creator to challenge faith. Which in itself is a fascinating idea.
  14. cmt

    cmt New Member

    I am not going to debate evolution/creation, but I will point out logical fallacies. Attributing 2+2 to being anywhere remotely analogous to ANY theory is fundamentally an error. Pick up any introductory logic text that deals with informal fallacies and the issue is settled. This is not up for debate. It is a textbook fallacy!

    If a creationist were to affirm the negative of your position, then they too would be wrong. The issue has nothing to do with copious amounts of evidence or any deficiency of evidence – it has to do with LOGIC 101. You prove my point when you illustrate how evolutionary theory has changed over time. Do we need to list all of the many permutations of Darwinianism through to the postulated (humor) equilibrium theory? You even hint yourself that it will continue to change – the evolution of evolution has come a very long way from its origins (more humor). 2+2 has NEVER changed. Lets all put our thinking caps on now and see if we can take the immutable nature of 2+2 and attribute it to something that has never been constant. :rolleyes:
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2003
  15. dave750gixer

    dave750gixer New Member

    sorry about the misunderstanding. I was in a hurry to go out and mixed several points together without explaining them distinctly enough. The analogy being discussed originally wasn't actually that 2+2=5 was in some was linked to either creationism or evolution being a better theory. As i understood it the arguement was about whether the statement that 2+2=5 would be given more or less credibility depending on the level of qualification of the mathematicians concerned. if I got that part wrong then again apologies all round:D

    The other points I was trying (obviously badly) to make were that an arguement that there was a problem with evolution since we have not managed to turn fruit flies into pigeons is as far away from being a useful analogy that I think I have ever heard.

    The final point was that (as you picked up on) all theories can change over time as we better understand the problem. This is a central part of what seperates the scientific method from dogma. The problem of course is when scientists treat the science as dogma :D
  16. dave750gixer

    dave750gixer New Member

    sorry, I was in a rush to go out and mixed several points together without explaining them properly. As I understand it the original point was not whether 2+2=5 was an analogy for whether evolution or creationism was more credible. But the analogy was that if a few mathematicians proposed that 2+2=5 would they be more credible if they had better qualifications. I reckon that is a good point.

    The analogy about turning fruit flies into pigeons has to be the poorest and least relevant analogy that I have ever come accross. With apologies to whoever made it of course:D

    As you (cmt) correctly picked out of my messy ramblings, theories do change as we gain a better understanding of both the question the theory answers and also the evidence for and against it. But any theory is only likely to be an approximation of he truth. But Einsteins theory doesn't mean Newton was wrong only that he wasn't right under all circumstances. (he was nearly right!)

    On your logic arguement. Considering the value of pi has changed over the years (including by decree) and the things mathematicians get up to with multidemensional universes and topology etc I wouldnt be surprised if under some circumstances 2+2 didnt give the expected answer:D
  17. dave750gixer

    dave750gixer New Member

    sorry about he double ish post but the computer crashed and I thought it had not been sent since my reply didnt seem to be in the post.
  18. Howard

    Howard New Member

    For or against, may I suggest "The Creation-Evolution Controversy" by R. L. Wysong.
  19. Jallen2

    Jallen2 New Member

    FYI 2+2 has an infinite answer set.

    Pick up any physics book and read the section on forces.

Share This Page