Microorganisms, compatibility: Creationism or Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Agreed, creationists tend to be amazingly dishonest and deluded.

Not just creationists. Relegating a common human problem to a single subset of humanity is also dishonest at worst and delusional at best.

It depends on wether the "common" human problem is actually that common, and wether that actually pertains to a subset of humanity or not, and also, who is making said judgement, sometimes, that is better than making a broad generalization.

Also somewhat relevant is whether such a problem is significantly more common in one subset than another.

Yeah, Jerry Bergman is a hack. Interestingly enough, PZ Myers debated him awhile back, so while I didn't recognize the name, I did recognize the guy who had 9 random degrees.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... debate.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... espect.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... ail_47.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... ssacre.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... wheels.php

A quote by Jerry Bergman from a link in the post wheels within wheels: "the only way to refute the concept of irreducible complexity is to demonstrate that all objects can be reduced to a fundamental particle and still function properly. If a radio, a functional eye or ear, can be achieved, for example, by a single quark (the particle scientists now believe is irreducible)--or all, of the functions of an intelligent human, including the ability to reproduce with other humans, can be produced by a single quark, they are not irreducibly complex."

(also note: Bergman's definition actually disagrees with Behe's, as seen in the next post on Pharyngula. It is kind of insane too by anybody's standard I think.)

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... ebuked.php

So, Orwell, I have to say that while I didn't read the entire paper, I would say that Bergman is a quack AND *demonstrably* a quack. So, talk about you being too dismissive of Bergman is quite overrated, as anybody who sees the evidence has to recognize that Jerry Bergman is missing a few screws.

You'd think at least one of those degrees would come from a better university, but whatever. You also have to wonder about someone who feels the need to join such organizations as "Who's Who" and "MENSA," one of which is basically just a con to scam people out of money, and the other serving as an ego booster for people who score reasonably on IQ tests but fail to actually achieve anything meaningful in the real world.


I read most of it. Skimmed the oversimplified virology and the irrelevant descriptions of viruses being applied in medicine or being used as models for study. He seemed to be contending that the possibility of viruses providing interesting information to us refutes the notion that viruses are harmful.

It seems that that problem may "solve" itself either with the appeal to the supernatural (God can make that change to happen because he is all powerful and/or the original sin made the supernatural transformation) or that your explanation is a deceiving tactic from the great conspiracy that the evil atheistic evolution is and you are part of it, because well, that cannot be true as it contradicts Scripture, so you must be wrong and evil to support such a thing.

I understand...very often, though, people hear the word "Creation" and automatically assume you subscribe to the literalist, six-day form, or other variations thereof, rather than one that truly accepts science.

Exactly. And precisely to avoid this confusion, I typically do not describe myself as a creationist.