Viceroy63 wrote:Symmetry wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:Clearly if you had carefully read the article, you would have realized that it was not his own Ph.D. that he was quoting in the article, but a bunch of others and scientist in different fields who all subscribe to the unfounded theory of evolution. Their own words convict them of the problems inherent to the unfounded theory of evolution.
And since when did it appeared to be a deception simply because he has a Ph.D.? I don't get that logic of yours? Is it now a crime to admit that you went to school and studied something and to put that title alongside your name?
"...although he clearly traded on his Ph.D for the gullible who might think that his doctorate was in a field he was discussing."
I don't have a Ph.D. but I am also quoting a whole bunch of scientist as well. Since when is that a crime? Or does that mean that I don't have the right to speak the truth about the unfounded theory of evolution?
It's no crime, it's simply misleading to quote a professional qualification if you don't have the qualification in the area you're discussing. I assume you wouldn't be ok accepting medical expertise from a doctor of sociology if they just said they were a doctor.
On a personal level, I checked out some of the quotations sourced, and they didn't pan out. Either they were clear misstatements of positions held, or simply factually inaccurate.
And yet you could not post any of those apparent discrepancies (with your explanations) that you just finish looking into, for us to evaluate on our own? =)
I honestly couldn't be bothered to. Apart from my point about the PhD, which was clearly misleading, and you haven't responded to, off the top of my head, point 7 has clearly been edited heavily, doesn't seem to represent the views of Mark Ridley, who isn't and never has been Professor of Zoology at Oxford, he's a doctor with a position as a research assistant/associate. Indeed, the full text indicates that there are several strong arguments for evolution, a point that dismisses the author's thesis that there are none.
Without the editing, of course, you might come away with a very different view:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html does a good job dismantling the innacuracies and obvious mistakes.
"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)
"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)
No wonder he left out the rest, it's a demolition of his arguments, not a support of them.