Monday, 7 July 2008

Evolutionist dogma supported by stacked deck poll in Dallas.

[quote]
Let’s say that in an effort to discover my bank account balance, I poll a set of financial officers that work in a top real estate firm. Fourteen give their opinion that my account is “plentiful,” and only one suggests that I contact my bank. I therefore conclude that my account must be plentiful and I dismiss the fellow who suggested that I check with the bank, convinced that he must be religiously motivated. After all, the majority ruled against him.
[end quote]

Such is the logic of Dallas Morning News, columnist Steve Blow when providing his opinion that only evolution belongs in the classroom (stating that all else is religion) bouyed up by a survey he conducted. The survey polled 18 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center faculty members who are members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. The article I have linked to below takes a closer look at what these scientists specialise in. Funnily enough, it's not Origins research!


[quote]
The UTSMC investigators are certainly top biomedical researchers. However, because a person is an expert on, say, cholesterol and bile acid metabolism, does this make him an expert on the origins of life? How would someone’s knowledge of advanced metabolism qualify him to speak authoritatively on the broad claims of molecules-to-man evolution? These are not overlapping disciplines. In addition, knowledge of evolutionary theory is not required for someone to investigate metabolic processes. Evolution is essentially a story that attempts to explain the unobservable past, while metabolism is a study of presently observable phenomena. In sum, Blow’s approach commits the “appeal to authority” fallacy.
[end quote]

I don't know about you, but I think I'd take the opinion of a real estate agent with a grain of salt if he's trying to sell me a house and he's telling me I have lots of money. Perhaps opinions re: the origins of our planet and the flora and fauna in it are better if free of evolutionary dogma and instead based on an open-minded discussion of all points of view? But why is this issue even vaguely relevant to you? Have a read of the article below if you are interested. The site that the article is from contains a lot of information that challenges evolutionary assumptions. If this topic interests you and you haven't read 'the other side', read on.

http://www.icr.org/article/3936/

No comments: