Rstuart,
You raise some thought provoking questions: Who qualifies as a real scientist? What is the purpose of science? Are creationists truly engaged in useful scientific endeavour? However, your accusations of unethical behaviour ought not pass without a defence.

Who is a real scientist? Firstly, let’s remember that large Australian governmental learning institutions don’t issue Doctor of Philosophy degrees just for fun. Dr Batten’s training and experience in the agricultural industry qualify him well to comment on matters of mutations and the limits on variations possible in living things.

What is the purpose of science? Science is the search for truth, or possibly a tool in that search. If not, then I’ll happily give the game away.

The role of creationists? Creationists investigate origins. As forensic scientists investigate recent events, archaeologists investigate past eras, likewise creationists aim to piece together the evidence to arrive at a picture of mankind’s origins.

Like evolutionists, creationists create models (which aren’t perfect), and like the evolutionists, they make their predictions.

Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record was incomplete and a weakness in his argument. Scientists of his era predicted that the intermediatory fossils would be found. They weren’t. The overall picture of the fossil record is not a lot different to that in Darwin’s time.

The creationist, Louis Pasteur, demonstrated that life does not spontaneously generate, but rather that maggots appearing on meat were the result of contamination by microbes. Pasteur predicted that life would never be seen to spontaneously appear (as evolutionists claim it once did). His prediction is not only thus far true but useful to the food industry.

In recent decades, creationists have predicted that mutation will never be seen to add useful genetic information to the genome.

Regarding alleged ‘unchristian’ conduct, Christian ethics is defined by the teachings of Christ and the Bible. According to numerous Biblical references, Jesus often quoted from Genesis, believing those accounts to be real and historical. The apostle Paul spoke of the creator God when he debated the various philosophers in Athens (Acts 17). Creationists are indeed following these Christian examples.

Dan,

I don't have any formal scientific qualifications. But you don't need to be a scientist to understand scientific method and recognise when someone's debauching it.

Creationism is a religious belief and nothing more. Whereas evolution adheres to the definition of “science”. The ill-informed and convenient argument from Creationists, that macroevolution is not repeatable is a furphy – not to mention hypocritical.

A theory doesn't need to be repeatable to be considered scientific – just as a court of law doesn't need a criminal to carry out his crime again, in front of the jury, to be proven guilty. Evidence is all that is needed. The evidence is validated, and if the pieces don't fit, it is eventually abandoned.

<<Dr Batten’s training and experience in the agricultural industry qualify him well to comment on matters of mutations and the limits on variations possible in living things.>>

Yes, they do.

Which goes to show just how dishonest his article was.

If Dr Batten knows anything about mutations then he knows that evolution is an entirely plausible theory. Again, Creationist “scientists” simply discard that which does not support their religious beliefs – not very scientific, is it?

You need to learn how to recognise when someone's speaking from their qualifications, and when they're speaking from their religious beliefs. There's a huge difference.

<<...creationists aim to piece together the evidence to arrive at a picture of mankind’s origins.>>

Then they're doing a horrible job of it considering biology, astronomy, geography and archeology conclusively disprove the literal interpretation of Genesis.

<<...and like the evolutionists, they make their predictions.>>

No they don't.

They spend their time trying to disprove certain aspects of certain fields of science, and twisting and over-simplifying the facts to support their religious beliefs.

<<Scientists of his era predicted that the intermediatory fossils would be found. They weren’t.>>

Wrong.

There are many intermediatory fossils. I've already explained this to you and provided a link to some examples. Repeating a falsehood is not going to make it true.

But thank you for demonstrating that Creationists simply discard information they don't agree with.

Continued...

...Continued

<<The overall picture of the fossil record is not a lot different to that in Darwin’s time.>>

Wrong again.

There have been many fossil discoveries that help fill the gaps. But like you said earlier, fossilisation is not exactly common. Finding them is even rarer.

<<The creationist, Louis Pasteur...>>

I like the way you've add “The Creationist”. This is a common attempt to give Creationism some undue prestige.

Two points:

1. Pasteur accepted evolution. He was just a little skeptical of some aspects of it.

2. Even if Pasteur didn't accept evolution, it would be meaningless considering how little we knew back then compared to now.

<<Pasteur predicted that life would never be seen to spontaneously appear (as evolutionists claim it once did).>>

Two points:

1. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Evolution explains how existing life evolves.

2. No scientist claims that life spontaneously appeared. You are either far too uneducated to be commenting, or just plain dishonest.

So no, this isn't an example of Creationists making predictions.

<<In recent decades, creationists have predicted that mutation will never be seen to add useful genetic information to the genome.>>

This prediction is based on religious belief, so it hardly qualifies as a scientific. But it's a good reason to label them as “pseudo-scientists”.

Too bad it turned out they were wrong anyway.

<<...Jesus often quoted from Genesis, believing those accounts to be real and historical.>>

But we can't know for sure that the alleged Jesus even existed. Even if he did, then of course he would have believed Genesis, being a Jew and living in times where they didn't know any better.

That he claimed to be the son of God is something that you have to have faith in. There are no reliable sources that say he said any such thing... and no, the Bible is certainly not a reliable source.

<<Creationists are indeed following these Christian examples.>>

If you'd bother to look any further than Creationism, you'd see how deliberately dishonest Creationist “scientists” are.

Hardly a Christian way to behave.

Dan S de Merengue. I see I have come dangerously close to casting aspersions on Batten's abilities in whatever work he does. My point was merely that if Batten is a scientist there are standards I expect all scientists to uphold. They must continue uphold those standards regardless of whatever University awards they have been conferred on them in the past.

If Batten had devoted a lifetimes work and reputation to studying microbiological evolution then I might subject his words to less scrutiny than others - perhaps accepting at face value statements he makes that I don't have the time or expertise check. You understand comments about E.Coli evolving into crocodiles in our lifetime in a flask wreck any chance of this happening - yes? As it stands now, I subject Battens statements to the same scrutiny as AJ Phillips or yours - any that can't be verified are treated with scepticism.

Regarding the definition of science: I find myself bridling at yourself "search for truth" definition. But whatever. I suspect we both happily accept Poppers definition of what science is, and possibly even on some of the reasons for doing it.

Dan S de Merengue: "In recent decades, creationists have predicted that mutation will never be seen to add useful genetic information to the genome."

As I said earlier, this statement is meaningless without a concrete definition of "useful". And you continually mention Louis Pasteur. I thought AJ Phillips addressed that in convincing manner earlier. Surely you have more examples in your repertoire?

Your statement "The overall picture of the fossil record is not a lot different to that in Darwin’s time." is bordering on the absurd. Prior to Darwin's time fossil's were just bones of odd dead animals. It was Darwin who caused us to look at them in a new way - as a history of life. In "Darwin's time" the overall picture was just the acorn he planted, not the oak it has grown into now.

rstuart,

I hope you're in this for the long-haul! It's been said before that debating Dan is like playing tennis with a brick wall.

You'll have to repeat yourself over-and-over again, but it's fun debunking what he regurgitates from Creationist sources... I certainly enjoy it!

Rest assured though, in the next thread, Dan will be back to repeat the same falsehoods, misconceptions, half-truths, fallacies and over-simplifications that you've already shown to be false.

Dan,

A few points I wasn't able to fit in the last two posts...

<<...creationists aim to piece together the evidence to arrive at a picture of mankind’s origins.>>

This isn't scientific. Science is analysing data to make discoveries and learn more – not selectively choosing data to fit a conclusion.

<<Pasteur predicted that life would never be seen to spontaneously appear...>>

A third point: Not only have scientists never claimed that new life spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, but Pasteur's prediction was that mice and maggots don't appear fully formed. He said nothing of abiogenesis. In fact, he didn't even really say too much about evolution either. Although Creationists like to make-out that he did.

<<Creationists are indeed following these Christian examples.>>

Then they forgot one of the ten commandments...

"Thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbour."

So why the quote mining?

Remember, 'quote mining' isn't just selectively picking quotes. It's taking quotes out-of-context and twisting their meaning with the intent of making it look like scientists are questioning evolution, or to create a sense of confusion that simply isn't there.

Many classic examples of quote mining can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

As you would be aware, this commandment also includes 'lying'.

So why the dishonesty in Batten's article? If he knows anything about mutations then he knows full well that there is no “edge of evolution”. This blatant dishonesty comes not from evidence but from his religious beliefs.

This is a good example of the squirming Creationists do when more evidence against Creationism comes to light. The 'young Earth' theory is unmistakably false, so they have to invent an “edge” for evolution.

Continued...

...Continued

Some more blatant examples of lying can be seen all through your posts. My favorites were...

“...tens of thousands of practicing scientists around the world who view the creation model as the more useful for explaining origins.”

- How can they possibly view it as more "useful" when it is scientifically "useless"?

“The intermediatory linking fossil evidence is still missing...”

“An explanation into the origin of a possible first living cell is a total conundrum, despite everything we know concerning chemistry saying that the elements will never arrange themselves in that manner.”

“Pasteur’s law of biogenesis says that life only comes from life.”

“Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome, such that that might bring about new and useful functioning systems...”

- Regardless of how you define “information” or “useful”, this is totally incorrect.

“A universal flood is a good explanation for the [fossil] evidence found.”

“The limits from mutational possibilities are helped made evident by Lenski’s and other experiments.”

"Scientists of his era predicted that the intermediatory fossils would be found. They weren’t."

"The overall picture of the fossil record is not a lot different to that in Darwin’s time."

“His [Pasteur's] prediction is not only thus far true but useful to the food industry.”

Then the most blatant one of all...

“(as evolutionists claim it [life] once did [spontaneously appear])”

I'm not accusing you of DELIBERATELY lying though. You are merely a 'casualty' in the dishonesty of Creationist “scientists” and the dogma of religion. The ones who really have to live with their dishonesty are those who peddle these falsehoods (yet know better) to the uneducated and to those who would already agree anyway... Those who I think we can now safely label “Pseudo-scientists”.