How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

I was commenting on Lucy's brainwashing comment. I don't think Lucy is really too interested in complaining about the media's (often misleading) treatment of science, or even things being picked up by the media before peer review, or bad textbooks, or about systematic brainwashing (creationism wouldn't exist without it). All things well worth complaining about.You've been around creation/evolution debates for a long time, I gather, so what do your instincts suggest to you when you read Lucy's comments on this site so far?Lucy (an australopithicus) is, remember, quite sure that she's an ape in the generally used sense of the word, not a transitional upright walker, and shows an interest in "Nebraska man" that you may just have seen somewhere before.

Yeah, Lucy was pointing to the press' coverage of scientific discoveries and had interpreted it as deliberate brainwashing by the scientists. It was the press that she was pointing to and yet was blaming the scientists for it. I know from having seen coverage of military (eg, ships returning to port) and Scouting events that the press routinely gets little facts wrong. The sensationalistic nature of the coverage is the press' embellishment and/or misunderstanding of a scientist's statements. Frankly, I welcome the new custom of the news service providing web links to source materials so that one can dig deeper than the sensational article.I haven't read enough from Lucy to have a feel for her yet. There are certain stock things that jump out from most creationists' posts, but I hadn't caught any yet. Though I haven't been paying much attention either.I'm sure that she had jumbled together Piltdown and Nebraska men. Piltdown did involve deliberate fraud in how the specimens had been filed down and treated to look old. Nebraska (as I recall the story) was an actual find by a Dr. Osborn. When the peccary in question was alive, the tooth had been rotated in its socket which caused unusual wear patterns that made it look rather like an anthropoid tooth. There was a lot of disagreement about the tooth's classification during Nebraska Man's short life span. About a year later at the same dig, the same Dr. Osborn found evidence of the tooth's true nature and then published his findings and Nebraska Man was no more. Except a magazine illustrator (in England, I think) had drawn a "reconstruction" of what Nebraska Man was supposed to have looked like. It is that illustration that the creationists continue to trot out.Now to check my memory. From the Wikipedia article at Nebraska Man - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Nebraska Man was the name applied by the popular press to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world" and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Though not a deliberate hoax, the classification proved to be a mistake.

​

It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 on the basis of a tooth found in Nebraska by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in 1917. An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amedee Forestier, who modelled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man", for the Illustrated News of London. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".

​

Further field work on the site in 1925 revealed that the tooth was falsely identified. Other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape, but to an extinct genus of Peccary called Prosthennops and its identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.

​

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted after ten years of its discovery, creationists are using this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they say undermine the credibility of palaeontology and hominid evolution.

---

Not bad. A bit more time had passed before the follow-up dig. Looks like I don't need to take any gecko balboa after all.PS
A more complete treatment of Nebraska Man can be found in the Creation/Evolution article, "The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate" at The role of Nebraska man in the creation-evolution debate. This and a similar article in Science '80-something (the name changed every year) were what I had read on the subject.Edited by dwise1, : PS

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

I'm new to the boards, so I guess that a response to the OP in this thread is a pretty good place to start with my first post.By way of a brief introduction, I'm a mature student studying marine biology in the UK ( so I guess I could describe myself as a biologist so I guess the OP question is directed at me)So, how can I, an aspiring biologist beleive in ToE?the obvious answer is a one word answer: EVIDENCE - but perhaps more simply, the world would look very different if the genesis account were true.for example:
The White cliffs of Dover wouldn't exist - the are made up of billions of microscopic fossils of marine plankton (coccolithophores Coccolithophore - Wikipedia).
Neither pre or post flood geology nor biology can explain how such a large deposit was made in one place over just a few thousand years - The changes to ocean chemistry neccessary for this would have rendered the seas poisonous to virtually all marine life (including ironically coccolithophores themselves) - not to mention the changes to the laws of physics that ensured that all of these fossils were deposited so discretely.
In contrast global tectonics, known plankton growth models, and known deposition rates explain the existence of the chalk cliffs very well.Ocean sediments would look very different - today we see sediments increasing in thickness from the Mid Ocean ridges to the continental shelves - not only this but the sediments of the abyssal plains are remarkably discrete - containing almost exclusively wind blown terrestrial dust of the very smallest grain sizes.
This is completely consistent with slow continental drift, and the behaviour of sediments in water - however a young earth and flood geology, would predict that deep ocean sediments are not only of a uniform thickness due to the rapid break-up of the continents (just a few months apparently), but would also predict a much more homogeous sediment type in terms of both grain size and physical composition.I could give more examples of why the earth is not 6000 years old - and certainly I know them, but frankly - those are enough to be getting on with.Looking at evolution from the "what would plants and animals look like if the genesis account were true" perspective, we have even more statling evidence either of evolution from common ancestors - or evidence for the most inept (or perhaps at the very best mischevious) creator.
Why, for example, would God create so many analogues and examples of intermediate eye structures in a just single phyla like mollusca (eyespots in gastropods, eye "cups" in bivalves, pinhole eyes in nautilida, and fully formed eyes in the rest of the cephalopoda class)?why would god design man fully formed from scratch, but in the process give us a skeletal structure and musculature so similar to that of apes that it appears that we have been designed to walk on 4 legs and thus condemn so many of us to lower back pain in out later years?
Why would god also include genetic deformities in man that he had also included in other apes, but not in "lower" vertibrates such as cats and dogs.
I could give plenty more examples of lousy design throughout the animnal kingdom, and perhaps most pertinetly in Humans, but I hope you get the point:
Common descent explains these points - conversely if the genesis account is true then god is either a lousy engineer and designer or he's deliberately trying to f**k with our heads (as well as our diets and lumbar regions).
Neither of which could be construed as the actions of a loving, forgiving god, and certainly not the actions of an omnipotent superbeing.In summary, for me personally - all it takes is a few simple comparsions with the predictions that either view point would make to what we can observe, to see which is the most valid.Thanks for listening.ps - if anyone is genuinely interested in the detail of the points I have raised - particularly related to marine biology and oceanography I'd be happy to either give a more detailed explanation of my points or direct you to useful reading materialEdited by AreWeNotMen?, : edited for typographic errors and invitation to ask for background information

Pull up a stump and set a spell. Keep your feet to the fire and the smoke never gets in your eyes.We need a thread on the Dover Cliffs. Can we get you to start one in the Proposed New Topics forum and shepherd it?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Welcome AreWeNotMen! Nice to see another marine biologist join the forum. I am a marine invert zoologist myself.I wanted to welcome you and echo jar's suggestion that you open a thread on Dover. It is my favorite old Earth proof. There is a growing collection of threads showing such evidences here at EvC and I think such resources are really valuable.

---

"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder

Thanks for the welcome guys - I'll step over to the proposed new topics forum shortly.Litho - spent most of this summer in Alaska - some of it working at UAF (ocean sciences and fisheries) and some of it just travelling around - fantastic place and some of the best beer I have ever tasted (mmmmmm Alaskan Amber drooool!) - I just can't figure out why you guys don't just tell the lower 48 to get screwed and declare independence though!

Welcome to the fray AreWeNotMen? Perhaps you would like to submit a paper to The Silly Design Institute?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Anti-Evolution Biologist Sues Woods Hole
A biologist filed suit this week against the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, asserting that the academic facility terminated him because of his religious beliefs that oppose evolution, according to an article in The Boston Globe today.
In 2004, Nathaniel Abraham was a postdoctoral fellow working for Mark E. Hahn, a Woods Hole senior scientist who studies how chemicals in the environment, including pollution, affect marine organisms. According to the Globe, Mr. Abraham told his supervisor that he did not believe in evolution and was asked to resign a month later. Mr. Hahn stated that Mr. Abraham should have known the job and the lab’s research grant from the National Institutes of Health involved using evolution to study how the chemical systems in marine organisms change over time. Mr. Hahn said that Mr. Abraham should have known that evolution was integral to the lab’s work because it was clear in the job description and in the grant proposal.

---

StoryBut of course the integrity of your objectiveness remains intact!

Flat-Earth adherents rarely keep jobs as cartographers, as well. At some point, people who are hired to do jobs can't expect to hide behind a religious exemption from doing them. What, people are supposed to be paid to do nothing at all?

If you want to talk about integrity, what about the integrity of Mr Abraham waiting until he had been appointed before mentioning his disbelief in evolution? That hardly seems fair.
If I were to apply for a post as a preacher (just for example) and I didn't believe in God, wouldn't it seem reasonable to mention this at the interview?
From your link,it seems clear that the central role of evolution in the work Abraham was taking on, was made absolutely clear. He should have mentioned it. The role of the project was not to ask "Is evolution real or not?", it was to study the effects of evolution, a tricky proposition if you don't believe in it. The guy specifically asked to be made exempt from performing key areas of his work. This is why he was fired, not because of his beliefs.
Frankly, you have to question the competence of a practising biologist who doesn't accept evolution. It's the only game in town.
According to the Boston Globe, Abraham now works for "Liberty University, a Christian university in Lynchburg, Va., founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell". What a surprise. Link here;
http://www.boston.com/news/,,,/biologist_fired_for_beliefs_suit_says/
I wonder about the integrity of Abraham's lawyer as well, because this case is a stinker. He is bound to lose.Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

---

Mutate and Survive

I'd have tyo agree with Granny - to me it looks suspiciously like the guy deliberately set out to provide ammunition for the anti evo nutters, or get a pay out from a court case for himself (or both).

Thanks for pointing out yet another case of lack of integrity of those who support your side and claim to follow Christian virtues but are fundamentally dishonest.

Actually I opened a thread on this guy's case a short bit ago (in Creation/Evolution in the News). In that thread Chiro pointed out that there was a Danish clergyman who apparently doesn't believe in god... and got in trouble... so I guess it goes both ways!

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Yet I look at the Constitution and read:

quote:

---

Article VI
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

---

Nor would I like to have the success of my job interview depend on the question of my faith. In fact I thought it was illegal for employers to ask.Are we into "don't ask don't tell" now?The question should revolve around the whether or not Abraham was willing and capable of doing the work to the standards of the lab, and have nothing to do with his beliefs - unless and until he says "I cannot do {X}" and {X} is a necessary part of the job. Actually doing science involved with the face to face encounter with evolution may be the best education one could want eh? In America? With judges on the supreme court that are religious bigots that installed a religious nut as president?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'd say integrity is not stabbing your opponent to death when you lose the debate:

quote:

---

A FRUIT-picking trip to southern New South Wales ended in the death of a Scottish backpacker who became embroiled in a bizarre row about creationism and evolution.

​

...

​

The couple, both biomedical scientists, had been arguing the case of evolution, while York had taken a more biblical view of history.

​

"Although this became perhaps a little sharp edged, it did not really amount to anything," Justice Michael Adams said during York's sentencing in the New South Wales Supreme Court today.

​

"For some reason, however ... the offender's mood changed suddenly and he began to abuse Mr Boa and Ms Brown.

​

"There was no hint of a physical confrontation and what a happened amounted to little more than a brief verbal contretemps."

​

Although the altercation had been defused by the time the Scottish tourists left the hotel, it became inflamed again at the caravan park when all three were quite drunk.

​

According to Ms Brown, York was making dinner when he attacked the couple outside his tent, stabbing Mr Boa with a kitchen knife as the argument escalated.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22924256-29277,00.htmlFive years for murder. Seems a little light. Still, though, maybe he wasn't responsible for his actions, being as he was deluded and all.