Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok. A respected scientist, Christian and proponent of Intelligent Design. Nothing wrong with his science and his argument for intelligent design would at least have some informed background. I can't say that I am familiar with his arguments, though I am sure if they were any good, they would have been used. So the name looks good. What is the evidence for Creation that he puts forward? and this is one for you to research, not us.
P.s nevertheless, I looked. And there are problems. It is the old problem of someone with expertise in chemistry pronouncing on evolution, and he does appear to present arguments that are rather to prone to rely on other people's arguments - notably those of anti evolutionists. That would be ok, if they were sound arguments, but they seem to make bad slips
".. Dr. Schaefer’s second concern is another one based on incredulity and ignorance. Stasis in the fossil record refers to the observation that species will vary in a certain range of morphology and that range is static for a significant period of time. The rapid turnover that Dr. Schaefer is referring to is the fact that in the fossil record species often abruptly disappear and are replaced without any recorded species to species transitions between them. However, he is guilty of equivocation by confusing what is considered gradual and rapid in biological time (evolution) with what is considered gradual and rapid in geologic time (fossilization). Dr. Schaefer is not a paleontologist, and thus I cannot imagine that he has much first-hand exposure to the fossil record. So the question is “where did he get his information on it?” Probably not from Gould and Eldredge who first described the broad pattern of species stasis and abrupt replacement in the fossil record (punctuated equilibrium) and who also demonstrated how it was logically the result of “the standard evolutionary model.” Dr. Schaefer probably encountered the bastard versions of punctuated equilibrium that are popular in anti-evolution literature, whose authors misconstrue the work of Gould and Eldredge to support their agendas. Simply put, he was had."
It is not impressive that he confuses the point I put to you about a species continuing with just minor evolutionary changes for long periods (stasis) with sudden rapid evolution such as dinosaurs after the Triassic extinction and mammals after the cretaceous one (punctured equilibrium) with an argument that seems to be based on a claim of lack of transitional forms.
It occurs to me that this could be the argument that transitional forms are just a species. You need a transitional between them an the one before and the one after. However, what is going on here is that negative evidence against evolution (no transitionals) is changed to the old favourite - explaining away evidence FOR evolution by interpreting it (and ignoring the clues that link the form with other specimens in the sequence) so as to fit into the "Kinds" theory.
That is not evidence for creation but Creationisms fiddling the evidence FOR evolution to make it vanish.
You can still present other arguments by Dr. Shafer, but that does not look good.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-28-2015 at 10:00 AM..
Ok. A respected scientist, Christian and proponent of Intelligent Design. Nothing wrong with his science and his argument for intelligent design would at least have some informed background. I can't say that I am familiar with his arguments, though I am sure if they were any good, they would have been used. So the name looks good. What is the evidence for Creation that he puts forward? and this is one for you to research, not us.
Apparently self-published. The publisher is listed as "The Apollos Trust" and his is the only book listed by them.
It's common (if a tad sleazy) for a self-publisher to invent a name as publisher rather than use his/her own.
I hadn't glommed that. I don't wish to attack Dr. Shaefer - just consider his arguments. But I have read some comments that his supposed 5 Nobel nominations is a claim made by a dubious source (Nominations are not revealed) and some rumbles about his group of researchers doing the papers and Shaefer's name having to be put on as well.
But as I say - the arguments count and that evolutionary one while not as wildly ignorant as so many creationist arguments, is wrong because of sloppy understanding oif palaeontology and evolution -theory.
I hadn't glommed that. I don't wish to attack Dr. Shaefer - just consider his arguments. But I have read some comments that his supposed 5 Nobel nominations is a claim made by a dubious source (Nominations are not revealed) and some rumbles about his group of researchers doing the papers and Shaefer's name having to be put on as well.
But as I say - the arguments count and that evolutionary one while not as wildly ignorant as so many creationist arguments, is wrong because of sloppy understanding oif palaeontology and evolution -theory.
Self-pubbing doesn't have quite the stigma it used to have and it's much more affordable now than even 10 years ago. Most commercial publishers are not interested in anything they deem does not have mass appeal. So, writers working in a niche area are turning to self-pubbing more and more often.
However, academic presses exist for scholarly works with limited appeal. I of course have no idea if Mr. Schaefer tried submitting there first.
Yeah! That's the ticket! Scientists are just dodo brains in lab coats. Hundreds of thousands of totally brain-dead scientists around the world all falling for the ruse that is evolution. What a buncha' knobs!
When every REALLY clever person on the planet knows for a fact god built a mud man and rib woman and simply made the rest of life LOOK like it evolved -- just to have a good laugh at those bozo scientists!
HAHAHAHA!!
No, not brain dead but rather so insistent on rejecting the fact that God is the author of science and life and especially with respect to the combination thereof by the super-natural/spiritual creativity, that they are not convinced as yet that science has already confirmed that evolution is not true because of the life factor. In the coming years however, as more new facts refute their/your theory of evolution you will see many more scientists jumping from their sinking ship. Just remember this, the evolutionary theory is a relatively new theory and modern science is just catching up to land a death blow to it.
Matter and energy do not give rise to life but rather life is a separate science that can only be explained by realizing a higher power then you or I possess or that the science of matter and energy are capable of.
I have never met a man that has seen the life force behind all living things and yet no one denies that life is more than a combination of the [dust] chemical elements of such combination that mix to have a human body form. Fortunately for you that there is One who was able to combine dust with life to make you what you are and not something else.
I have much respect for scientists who honestly pursue fact finding on both sides of this issue because in the end honest researchers will prove what God has said all along.
No, not brain dead but rather so insistent on rejecting the fact that God is the author of science and life and especially with respect to the combination thereof by the super-natural/spiritual creativity, that they are not convinced as yet that science has already confirmed that evolution is not true because of the life factor. In the coming years however, as more new facts refute their/your theory of evolution you will see many more scientists jumping from their sinking ship. Just remember this, the evolutionary theory is a relatively new theory and modern science is just catching up to land a death blow to it.
Matter and energy do not give rise to life but rather life is a separate science that can only be explained by realizing a higher power then you or I possess or that the science of matter and energy are capable of.
I have never met a man that has seen the life force behind all living things and yet no one denies that life is more than a combination of the [dust] chemical elements of such combination that mix to have a human body form. Fortunately for you that there is One who was able to combine dust with life to make you what you are and not something else.
I have much respect for scientists who honestly pursue fact finding on both sides of this issue because in the end honest researchers will prove what God has said all along.
More nonsensical word salad from a regular source of same.
I must say that the first sentence, in particular, typifies the genre:
Quote:
No, not brain dead but rather so insistent on rejecting the fact that God is the author of science and life and especially with respect to the combination thereof by the super-natural/spiritual creativity, that they are not convinced as yet that science has already confirmed that evolution is not true because of the life factor.
I went to the first scientist on the list and found quite a lot on the internet.
Topics in the book range from the creation of the universe to problems of the Theory of Evolution
The OP specifically asked for this:
Quote:
When you select your hero , you must show on what scientific basis he or she thinks evolution is wrong , complete with links to papers or such that he has written showing the flaws of evolution. Religious opposition without a scientific basis is irrelevant. Voiced opinion without studies and accompanying papers showing the reasoning is irrelevant.
Anyone can write a book. Anyone including you. A book is nothing but an opinion piece.
I challenge you to list just one scientific research paper that has been by written by this Shaefer, which demonstrates the studies that he has performed that prove Evolution wrong. This paper would of course be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Now a little about Shaefer's credentials. Henry Schaefer, Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia. Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and Dembski's International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.
Describes himself as “sympathetic” to Intelligent Design but primarily a “proponent of Jesus.”
Bottom line he is a real scientist in an unrelated field. Doesn’t really understand evolution.
The Discovery Institute has been caught attempting to inflate his credentials on several occasions.
Lastly - it's clear you have no understanding of scientific peer review.
On a side note my brother is an Astrophysicist who has never taken courses in Biology, Genetics, Chem, Organic Chem, Biochem. Yes he is a scientist but one who would not serve as a credible source to represent Evolution, much less write a book about it. See how that works
But at least someone has chosen a name from the list and presented something in the form of evidence. OK, so that evidence doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I would tend to suspect that Henry Schaefer was in fact very clever in writing his book. A lot of Christian fundamentalists would buy it! And he makes lots of money.
I notice that on the cover of his book he calls himself simply "Henry Schaefer", no qualification titles.
But at least someone has chosen a name from the list and presented something in the form of evidence. OK, so that evidence doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I would tend to suspect that Henry Schaefer was in fact very clever in writing his book. A lot of Christian fundamentalists would buy it! And he makes lots of money.
I notice that on the cover of his book he calls himself simply "Henry Schaefer", no qualification titles.
Actually there are a few scientists who are trying to use their "credentials" to make money from the fundie community...it can be just as profitable for them (if not more) and much easier vs. putting in the time and effort to conduct actual research and publish papers.
Fundies are easily duped and the ID/Discovery Institute scientists know it.
These scientists know that all they have to do is become a representative/spokesman for ID or the Discovery Institute and the money will pour in for them...plus they don't have to do any real work...just show they have a science degree (no matter what field of since it's in) and the fundies will gullibly believe anything they say or write in a book.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
