religious reasons?

More properly, no one has ever been able to show me a creationist did not have a religious agenda.

Jonathan Wells, for example, once claimed to have been influenced only by the evidence he found during his PhD training, but later, it was discovered that he had admitted to a prior "mission to destroy evolution".

One prominent creationist argued that Mt. St. Helens had converted him from an evolutionist to a creationist. But it was later found that he had been writing creationist tracts long before that, under a psuedonym.

Kurt Wise honestly admits that no evidence could convince him his understanding of Scripture was wrong, and Harold Coffin has testified that if he went by the evidence, he would not be a YE creationist.

Most aren't quite that honest. How many creationists do you know who aren't religious creationists?

 

I'm unaware of any scientist who rejects evolution who doesn't do so for religious reasons.

Name me one who isn't of a religious persuasion that rejects evolution.

 

You can't think of one, either? Neither can I, and I've read a lot of the literature. I think you must mean "Del Ratzsch", but he's a philosopher. He's not a scientist.

If you can't find one, is it possible that it's because there isn't one?

 

I don't know him, but I know how to spell his name.

Nope it's a field of philosophy. Do you know of any scientists who object to evolution, but don't have a religious agenda?

It matters a lot. I said there weren't any scientists who objected to evolution who didn't have a religious agenda, and you want me to accept a philosopher as a substitute. If that's the best you can do, you've already proven my point.

So far, it stands. Would you like to take another shot at finding a scientist like that?

If you do think of one, let me know.

 

Well, saying that no scientist rejects evolution for reasons other than religious might be too strong. One should, perhaps, say only that no scientific rejects evolution for other than nonscientific reasons.

That this is so is obvious: Any scientist who found scientific reason to reject a part of science so important and fundamental as evolution would be duty bound (as well as absolutely eager!) to publish his findings for other scientists to read, including within regular scientific channels of communication. And if there were such a publication it would create a sensation and every scientist (I write only slightly hyperbolically here) would get up and read it. But there is no such paper, so there ain't no such scientist. . (Of course there are claims to the contrary, but nothing ever pans out. Really, Helen, bravado aside, something like a scientist rejecting evolution for scientific reasons is about as likely to be kept secret as your typical military sectret. It would leak out.

Well, maybe it would have to take a few weeks to go through the grape vine. So let me weaken my statement again; no scientists prior to (say) a year ago has rejected evolution of other than non-scientific reasons.

 

I'd still be open to an example of such a scientist.

I gather you can't think of one.

Neither, apparently, can anyone else. That's a pretty good bit of evidence in itself.

 

Well, we'll just say that as far as anyone knows, there is no such scientist.

There's a good reason for that. Of course, it's been observed that you can find someone who believes almost anything somewhere.

But in this case, it's so bizarre that I doubt if you'll find even one.

 

I think you were doing better when you tried to deal with the topic.

Granted your example of Ratzsch didn't work, but that is the kind of thing that would help.

If your position is "I don't know of any scientists like that, but I'm very sure that they must exist somewhere.", I guess I couldn't refute that.

But I'm pretty sure that you will never find them.

 

I am not sure where the burden of proof logically lies in this case - Galation made a statement so normally the burden of proof would rest with him - however, Mark makes a good point - Galations statement is not contentious - it is self evident (rather like saying the sky is blue).

Unless Helen can provide some examples to disprove it?

 

I have one for you Helen:

Kurt Wise, who wrote:

Which is in the book: "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation" by Wise.

 

The assertion is like "there are no such things as leprechauns".

I can't prove there aren't, but I doubt if someone will find an example to contradict me.

Actually leprechauns are probably more likely than Helen's hypothetical scientists.

 

yes you are right - it is not valid to expect someone to prove a negative, the burden of proof should fall on Helen to disprove your statement.