Molecular Biology - The Final Frontier

A fellow SecWeb poster, Baidarka, posted an excerpt from an e-mail correspondence he was having with a creationist involving (in)famous modern creationists of various sorts with degrees in Biology:

quote:

---

Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology--He has a B.S. in Biology/Chemistry with honors
from Tufts University, a Masters in Biology from Harvard, and the Ph.D. in
Biology with a major in Ecology and a minor in Biochemistry from Harvard
University. He has been on the faculties at the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), the University of Wisconsin
at La Crosse, and Western Wisconsin Technological Institute at La Crosse.

​

Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology--He has a B.A. in Biology/Chemistry(high honors)
from Wabash College, Crawfordville, IN, a M.S. in Biology/Physiology, and an
Ed.D. in Biology with a cognate in Paleontology from Ball State University.
Dr. Parker earned several academic awards, including admission to Phi Beta
Kappa (the national scholastic honorary), election to the American Society
of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles), and a fifteen-month fellowship
award from the National Science Foundation. He also wrote five secular books
including: The Structure and Function of the Cell, DNA: The Key to Life,
Mitosis and Meiosis, Heridity, and Life's Basis: Biomolecules. Dr. Parker's
masters thesis concerning amphibian endocrinology was published in Copeia
and a summary of his doctoral dissertation on programmed instruction was
published in the Journal of College Science Teaching.

​

Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology--He has a B.S. in Biology from Abilene
Christian University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Microbiology from Texas A&M.
Dr. Thompson is a former professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at
Texas A&M, where he also served as Coordinator of the Cooperative Education
Program in Biomedical Science. He is also a member of the American Society
of Microbiology.

​

David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology--He has a B.A. in Biology from Mankato
State University and a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from Brown University. Dr.
Menton is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington U. School of Medicine.
He was Associate Professor of Anatomy for over 30 years. He received the
"Distinguished Service Teaching Award" in 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
named "Teacher of the Year" 1979 and was elected "Professor of the Year" in
1998 by the Class of 2000. He has also been Profiled in 'American Men and
Women of Science - A Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical,
Biological and Related Sciences' for almost two decades.

​

Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology--He has a B.S. in Biology from Asbury
College, a M.S. in Soil Microbiology from the University of Kentucky, a
Ph.D. in Microbiology (Microbiology, Limnology, Ecology) from Indiana
University, and a Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the National Institutes of
Health, University of Minnesota. Dr. Fliermans is a microbial ecologist with
the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. in
South Carolina. He has published over sixty publications including papers in
Protozoology and the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary
Microbiology. Dr. Fliermans is a Legionella bacterium (Legionnaires Disease)
expert and has served as an expert witness in many litigations. His lab was
the first to isolate the bacterium in the natural environment, and he has
twenty publications on Legionella as well. He has been part of grants and
contracts totalling over twenty-two million dollars. Some of this work has
included using microbes to detect land mines for the U.S. Department of
Defense and being program technical director of the U.S. Department of
Energy's "Microbiology of the Deep Subsurface" program. Dr. Fliermans has
also served as a consultant to over ninety universities, companies, and
organizations including Harvard Medical School, EPA, U.S. Department of
Energy, U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, National Institutes of Health, and the
National Science Foundation.

​

Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology--He received a B.Sc.(Hons.) and a
Ph.D. from Monash University in Australia. His fields were genetics,
biochemistry and molecular biology. He completed his Post Doc training at
Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Macreadie is a Principal
Research Scientist of CSIRO Health Sciences and Nutrition and an Adjunct
Professor of RMIT University. He has played key roles in identifying the
structure and function of several mitochondrial genes. After joining
Bimolecular Research Institute of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), he developed a novel yeast
expression system that led to the production of an IBDV vaccine. He used
yeast systems to produce biologically relevant proteins of human AIDS and
major infectious cellular pathogens such as malaria and P. carini. These
systems are being used to rapidly screen for new classes of drugs. Major
links have been established with key international groups with similar
objectives. He is author of over 70 research publications and five patents.
His awards include a 1990 Fulbright Senior Scholar Award, 1996 Frank Fenner
Research Award. Dr. Macreadie was also a co-recipient of the 1997 CSIRO
Chairman's Medal for their outstanding contributions to our knowledge of the
structure and biology of the Birnaviridae family of double-stranded RNA
viruses, leading to the development of a prototype recombinant vaccine
against infectious bursal disease of poultry. He was also Honorary Secretary
of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from
1997-2000.

---

A few patterns arise quite quickly when examining this list, which I felt should be shared:-All 6 of these creationists, to my knowledge, were various degrees of biblical literalists, and hence creationists, before beginning their studies
-2 of the 6 have degrees in general biology - no specific intra-curricular study in evolution
-4 of the 6 have degrees in micro/molecular/cellular biologyThis last bit baked my brain for a few, before it dawned on me:-Its easier for them to find examples of 'irriducible complexity' to justify creationism because of the nature of proteins and similar molecules.
-Because Darwinian Theory was originally developed to explain phylogenic diversity in the mid-to-late eighteenth century, while modern molecular/micro/cellular biology is a product of the mid ninteenth century, thus molecular/micro/cellular bio (outside genetics) has seen the least application of evolutionary theory out of any Biology subset.
-Because soft tissue is almost never preserved for very long, and because objects as small as cells leave few to no archeological imprints around the bone, there is no historic record to parallel the Fossil Record to support evolutionNot one of these scholars became a creationist in response to the study of population genetics, the fossil record, and evolution. Indeed, it seems to me that, whether intentional or not, these men never studied these things through the standard channels - through courses taught at universities. Thus it is my opinion that for these six gentlemen, evolution never stood a snowball's chance in hell.

Hi Daydreamer. Welcome to evcforum!Interesting analysis. My take on the whole "argument from authority" issue - especially dealing with "biologists who don't believe (sic) in evolution" like we hear all the time - is that for every creationist/IDist biologist there are thousands of biologists etc who DO accept the ToE. In fact, the extraordinarily limited number of biologists who subscribe to some form of creationism are faaaar outnumbered by the biologists who, for example, subscribe to the metaphysical aspects of the "gaia hypothesis". In other words, you can always find SOMEBODY to buy off on ANY theory. Doesn't mean they're not full of it...

I agree - from what I've read the percentage of those who accept evolution in the population at large is 53%, compared to 95% of those who have a degree in biology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daydreamer:
I agree - from what I've read the percentage of those who accept evolution in the population at large is 53%, compared to 95% of those who have a degree in biology.

---

One other comment Daydreamer, the concept of Irreducible Complexity is the brainchild (or pipedream depending on your point of view) of Michael Behe of Lehigh University. Dr. Behe is a molecular biologist. As both myself and others have pointed out in numerous forums Irreducible Complexity has a number of fatal flaws, as do M. Behe's examples of IC. Part of the mental error in finding this approach tenable is the manner in which Dr. Behe intruduces his cascades, he actually does them backwards. For example, if you examine simple vs more complicated clotting systems you find that the layers of control appear to be added to the initiation portion of the reaction, not the terminal portion. Dr. Behe did not point this out in his reference to Dr. Dolittles (sp?) work. And that is just one flaw amoung many. His statistics concerning biological systems and protein formation are abysmal using the same a priori assumptions that most creationists use, which use invalid or highly questionable assumptions (ie calculations for maximum mutational rate based on hemoglobin for variation between ape and man).------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Actually, I knew Behe was a molecular biologist, I just couldn't find any descent mini-bios of him to tack onto the existing list. Thanks anyway though.

I know Ian Macreadie personally and to my knowledge he came to the literalist viewpoint in later years although I'll ask him next time I see him - OK? I know he only 'came out' in the last 8 years. The other creationist in mainstream biology that I know in this city definitely became a creationist well after his PhD. From his electron microsope work it dawned on him that life was designed. So from my list of 3 mainstream biology researcher who are creationists (myself included) 2/3 became creationists after our PhDs but, yes, none of us are paleontologists or population geneticists.Would now be a good time to post an extract of a recent obituary on a famous population evoltuionists that clearly ppoints out that everything that most poulation geneticists do is microevoltuion? They even used that dirty word themselves!

quote:

---

Would now be a good time to post an extract of a recent obituary on a famous population evoltuionists that clearly ppoints out that everything that most poulation geneticists do is microevoltuion? They even used that dirty word themselves!

---

Feel free. Remember, however, that it had better be in context AND had better take into consideration any other germane bits of information on the individual's work and writings. IOW, no typical creationist "Stephen Gould says there are no transitionals" misrepresentation. Research your assertion BEFORE reporting it so the rest of us don't have to. Thanks.

Could you tell me more about these two people? I.E. whether they were religious before their conversion, whether their change was during a period of turmoil in their life, how strongly were they for evolution before and how strongly they are for (and which) creationism after, etc.

Although I know Ian Macreadie well we mainly talk mainstream shop and daily life stuff. I'll ask him again.The other guy was a mainstream church goer but definitely only by tradition to make his wife happy. His work in electron microscopy pointed him to a grand designer. At the same time he attended a series of seminars on Old Testament archeology. It is his testimony that in that same year he then had a personal Acts 2 experience in isolation. Months later he discovered an old prayer book with a picture of the Acts 2 phenomena and realised that is what had happened to him. I know of no problems in his life at that time. But, boy, did it stir up his family!I was brought up in a Christian 'fundamentalist' home and can make no claims to independent 'conversion' although I in myself know that I have worked through both my own salvation and scientific study on creation/flood. 15 years ago I disagreed with some of the well known creationists on speciation, mutations, galaxies, radiodating and thermodynamics. They've almost all come around to my way of thinking except perhaps on thermodynamics!

quote:

---

The other guy was a mainstream church goer but definitely only by tradition to make his wife happy. His work in electron microscopy pointed him to a grand designer. At the same time he attended a series of seminars on Old Testament archeology. It is his testimony that in that same year he then had a personal Acts 2 experience in isolation. Months later he discovered an old prayer book with a picture of the Acts 2 phenomena and realised that is what had happened to him. I know of no problems in his life at that time. But, boy, did it stir up his family!

---

Link to Acts 2 for other non-Xians: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/acts/notes.html#2I was anticipating such a response - in my experience conversions towards creationism tend to me paired with change towards greater religiousity and tend to be emotional rather than rational experiences.

quote:

---

I was brought up in a Christian 'fundamentalist' home and can make no claims to independent 'conversion' although I in myself know that I have worked through both my own salvation and scientific study on creation/flood. 15 years ago I disagreed with some of the well known creationists on speciation, mutations, galaxies, radiodating and thermodynamics. They've almost all come around to my way of thinking except perhaps on thermodynamics!

---

I take it then that you're a multiple acts-of-creation OEC?

Sorry, I am a YEC but was always convinced the galaxies were billions of years old, that good mutations occur etc. With Humphrey's cosmology old galaxies are now reconcilable with YEC and I just never understood why some creationists insisted that good mutations never occur. I agree that good mutations can occur but that this doesn't necessarily explain the origin of genomes.We distinguish between emotions and 'heart issues'. IMO 'conversion' involves 'heart issues'. Most human beings will then have an emotional response to the outcome of such issues but I do not fundamentally believe that conversion is an emotional issue. I am utterly convinced of the truth of the gospel and I am not an overly emotional person.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-04-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Sorry, I am a YEC but was always convinced the galaxies were billions of years old, that good mutations occur etc. With Humphrey's cosmology old galaxies are now reconcilable with YEC and I just never understood why some creationists insisted that good mutations never occur. I agree that good mutations can occur but that this doesn't necessarily explain the origin of genomes.We distinguish between emotions and 'heart issues'. IMO 'conversion' involves 'heart issues'. Most human beings will then have an emotional response to the outcome of such issues but I do not fundamentally believe that conversion is an emotional issue. I am utterly convinced of the truth of the gospel and I am not an overly emotional person[/QUOTE]JM: I am utterly unconvinced and I am not an overly emotional person. Frankly, I am not sure what this thread is attempting to argue. If one wants to make it a democratic vote on how many 'credentialed' scientists accepts evolution or creation, evolution wins hands down. However, that is not a particularly strong argument since science does not proceed by 'majority rules'. Evolution and (old earth geology) succeed based on their explanatory and parsimonious scientific strengths and the religious 'bends' of the scientists are interesting, but totally irrelevant.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Sorry, I am a YEC but was always convinced the galaxies were billions of years old, that good mutations occur etc. With Humphrey's cosmology old galaxies are now reconcilable with YEC and I just never understood why some creationists insisted that good mutations never occur. I agree that good mutations can occur but that this doesn't necessarily explain the origin of genomes.

---

Gap Creationism then?

quote:

---

We distinguish between emotions and 'heart issues'. IMO 'conversion' involves 'heart issues'. Most human beings will then have an emotional response to the outcome of such issues but I do not fundamentally believe that conversion is an emotional issue. I am utterly convinced of the truth of the gospel and I am not an overly emotional person.

---

I understand your point - I merely meant that the origin of the belief is emotional (communing with one's god(s)/goddess(es) etc.) and reason comes afterwards.

[QUOTE] I was brought up in a Christian 'fundamentalist' home and can make no claims to independent 'conversion' although I in myself know that I have worked through both my own salvation and scientific study on creation/flood. 15 years ago I disagreed with some of the well known creationists on speciation, mutations, galaxies, radiodating and thermodynamics. They've almost all come around to my way of thinking except perhaps on thermodynamics![/B][/QUOTE]So, how is it that they were wrong all of those years, and how do you know that you are right?Aren't we just getting back to who's interpretation one feels like beliving in?

Daydreamer, I'm saying that, IMO, the origin of belief is conscience/attitude/response, not emotion. Emotion and full understanding typically come afterward. I believe that conscience/attitude/response is one of our deepest characteers and that that is what God looks at, not either emotions or intellect.I would actually associate these three things that I came up with of the top of my head with 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul' with heart = conscience, mind = response, soul = attitude in a very approximate fashion. I ahven't done the Bible study on it but I wouldn't be surprised if Scriptually heart, mind and soul are inner primary properties of humans whereas emotions and intellect are 'secondary'.Many may view humans as naturalistic black boxes with emotions and intellect. I see us as a soul with deep underlying characteistics that only the Spirit can fathom.Via Humphrey's cosmology we have, via general relativistic time dialation (like near a black hole), 15 billion years of universe expansion and astrophysical processes during the literal creation week as measured at Earth's coordinates. In Humphrey's dynamical model the expansion itself automatically exponentially morphs the continuously varying fast and slow time zones together so that they have been running at the same rate for most of history. Sounds like hooey for you guys of course but it seems so far that it may be compatible with the data and will ultimately generate predictions that will enable it to be distinguished from the Big Bang.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-04-2002]