Like so many evos on FR when pressed for their credentials.
It turns out that most of them have no scientific background. It’s a belief system that they adhere to and claim they are right because of the appeal to authority, which they so despise when others do it.
I just love how the non-scientists tell the scientists that they are wrong just because they disagree with them.
It turns out that most of them have no scientific background. It’s a belief system that they adhere to and claim they are right because of the appeal to authority, which they so despise when others do it.
Do you really want to compare credentials?
I just love how the non-scientists tell the scientists that they are wrong just because they disagree with them.
We see this a lot on these threads. In almost all cases it is religious fundamentalists telling scientists they are wrong. You are one of the prime offenders.
Because of this uneducated nitpicking a large number of scientists have left FR.
That's been going on as long as there have been scientists. Even the scientists tell the scientists they're wrong. The non-scientists aren't in any better shape - they can't even agree on exactly what it is the scientists are wrong about.
Well, I have mixed feelings about all this.
On the one hand, I do not subscribe to the cult of the expert. I.e., I don't think that only people who have "credentials" in a field are necessarily competent to comment about things in that field. My experience, both from university and in industry, is that often times, people may have the relevant degree(s), but they are still idiots. I am a big fan of autodidacticism, and I think that a reasonably intelligent person, while not perhaps becoming an expert, can become knowledgable enough about a field of interest outside of their chosen profession that they can at least discuss it on a forum like FR.
At the same time, I don't give credibility to any old yokel who decides to comment on something about which they've invested little to no time or energy in learning.
My experience on FR and elsewhere is that the evos usually try to front about their science experience - which many of them do have - but then try to use that experience, in and of itself, as an argument, rather than dealing with the actual scientific argumentation. While I am not a biologist, I am familiar with the literature in that field, enough so as to at least be able to intelligently critique it beyond the "They think we come from monkeys!" level. Most all of what is claimed as supporting evolution in the run-of-the-mill genetics literature is really just circular reasoning - evolution is assumed beforehand, and any findings are interpreted as supporting the paradigm.