Regarding Evoltuion - Anyone heard of Dr. Carl Werner?

[John Cuthber]

Either he said that the things are the same (rather than just looking similar) or he didn't.

If he said it then he needs to show that it's true.

If he didn't say it- i.e. if he said they just look similar- then he hasn't said anything worth shooting a video about.

[Arete]

So are you saying somewhere in the video he says something to the effect "they not only looked the same, but that they were the same"?

 

From his website (easily found with a google search, so I'm not going to link it and drive traffic there): "Dr. Werner asks the simplest question. Was life completely different in the past (evolution) or did some animals and plants simply go extinct (creation)?"

 

So his central premise is that fossil organisms ARE representative of extant taxa, and that speciation never occurs. As explained earlier this is trivially proven false and his experiment of taking photos of museum exhibits and comparing them to modern taxa is laughably poor attempt to provide evidence for this entirely incorrect argument.

 

Time to move along?

[Robittybob1]

 

From his website (easily found with a google search, so I'm not going to link it and drive traffic there): "Dr. Werner asks the simplest question. Was life completely different in the past (evolution) or did some animals and plants simply go extinct (creation)?"

 

So his central premise is that fossil organisms ARE representative of extant taxa, and that speciation never occurs. As explained earlier this is trivially proven false and his experiment of taking photos of museum exhibits and comparing them to modern taxa is laughably poor attempt to provide evidence for this entirely incorrect argument.

 

Time to move along?

What difference does it matter if he asks a question. It was whether his exploration supported that question or not and in at least in the video it did show there were plenty of modern species that were not found along with the dinosaurs. OK he then proposes some reason why this maybe so but there was no evidence presented.

Either he said that the things are the same (rather than just looking similar) or he didn't.

If he said it then he needs to show that it's true.

If he didn't say it- i.e. if he said they just look similar- then he hasn't said anything worth shooting a video about.

How can they be "the same"? For how do you propose they be judged the same? DNA analysis is out of the question. His criteria was looks substantially alike (my words, not a quote).

 

The reason I don't just let it go is that I do feel he has made it easier for a creationist to at least consider some aspects of evolution.

I certainly feel he is unlikely to change a person's view the other way around.

It is possible to talk extensively without saying anything. Your own posts are generally testament to that.

 

John Cuthber has eloquently nailed it with his question to you "Do you understand, if he didn't say that, he didn't say anything?"

 

Implicit in his assertions that today's species look like fossil species is that they are the same. If he all he is saying is that they look alike, but are not alike, then he is saying nothing of relevance to evolution or creation. Is that not apparent to you?

So it sounds like you also agree his view does not polarize the debate by "saying nothing of relevance to evolution or creation".

[Arete]

What difference does it matter if he asks a question.

 

Because the question is trivially answered using overwhelming available evidence. It's an irrelevant question in any contemporary, rigorous scientific setting.

 

It's a notably poorly executed attempt to provide scientific looking legitimacy to an argument for creationism that has none - and in doing so is dishonest. Acting as if it's a legitimate question and pretending to have authority on the subject matter is dishonest, and the "experimental design" of the "study" conducted to supposedly "test" the hypothesis is atrocious - I have literally seen more rigor at an elementary school science fair.

 

I think it does the opposite of helping creationists come to terms with evolution. It provides false information to give the appearance of scientific uncertainty when there is none, potentially duping the gullible into thinking that there is merit in a creationist argument when in fact there isn't.

[Strange]

The reason I don't just let it go is that I do feel he has made it easier for a creationist to at least consider some aspects of evolution..

 

I don't know what you base that on. He is presenting exactly the same lies and twisted facts as all Creationists.

[Robittybob1]

 

I don't know what you base that on. He is presenting exactly the same lies and twisted facts as all Creationists.

That seems that your view is rather biased. I am thinking how can a Christian come across to a view of evolution without losing their faith? Werner's finding assists this process in my view.

As you may know I consider myself a Christian with evolutionary views. So I would prefer if others could come across to this viewpoint.

 

Because the question is trivially answered using overwhelming available evidence. It's an irrelevant question in any contemporary, rigorous scientific setting.

 

It's a notably poorly executed attempt to provide scientific looking legitimacy to an argument for creationism that has none - and in doing so is dishonest. Acting as if it's a legitimate question and pretending to have authority on the subject matter is dishonest, and the "experimental design" of the "study" conducted to supposedly "test" the hypothesis is atrocious - I have literally seen more rigor at an elementary school science fair.

 

I think it does the opposite of helping creationists come to terms with evolution. It provides false information to give the appearance of scientific uncertainty when there is none, potentially duping the gullible into thinking that there is merit in a creationist argument when in fact there isn't.

That certainly shows me what you fear but I suggest from a young Christian's point of view some of the division is removed by his photographic "research".

Edited January 10, 2016 by Robittybob1

[ajb]

I am thinking how can a Christian come across to a view of evolution without losing their faith?

That depends on what the Christian believes to be true. A very literal interpretation of the bible is certianly going to be hard to keep hold of. But like all religions, one can chose to not be so strict in interpretation and fit passages to your view, or just ignore them.

 

Anyway, I had a look at Werner's website and I am not surprised by how 'quackish' it is. I was amazed at his page on the role of medical doctors in evolutionary science. It was a hash of historical points of view on biology and some interesting discoveries by people who just happened to be physicians. He was implying, as quacks often do, that as someone 'like him' had done great things for science then he must be doing great things for science. After reading that page you can be assured his point of view is rather bogus.

 

 

I think it does the opposite of helping creationists come to terms with evolution. It provides false information to give the appearance of scientific uncertainty when there is none, potentially duping the gullible into thinking that there is merit in a creationist argument when in fact there isn't.

The whole philosophy of 'deniers' of <insert your favourite science here> is that they find a few things that we don't know for sure, or some small gaps in knowledge and extrapolate that this means the whole science is wrong. They ignore all the great evidence and focus only on a few usually quite minor issues.

 

Often this is of course just based on very poor understanding. For example, I read a rebuttal of the Big Bang cosmology based on the fact that a stick of dynamite does not create another universe! (I am not lying here!)

 

Or they just tell lies... that seems to be another approach.

Edited January 10, 2016 by ajb

[Robittybob1]

....

Anyway, I had a look at Werner's website and I am not surprised by how 'quackish' it is. I was amazed at his page on the role of medical doctors in evolutionary science. It was a hash of historical points of view on biology and some interesting discoveries by people who just happened to be physicians. He was implying, as quacks often do, that as someone 'like him' had done great things for science then he must be doing great things for science. After reading that page you can be assured his point of view is rather bogus.

I will have to read his website to see what it is like. Thanks.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

That seems that your view is rather biased. I am thinking how can a Christian come across to a view of evolution without losing their faith? Werner's finding assists this process in my view.

As you may know I consider myself a Christian with evolutionary views. So I would prefer if others could come across to this viewpoint.

 

!

Moderator Note

As this is posted in Biology, please keep religion out of it.

[Arete]

That certainly shows me what you fear but I suggest from a young Christian's point of view some of the division is removed by his photographic "research".

 

Fear would be the wrong word. Disdain would be closer to the mark - even a hobbyist fossil collector/zoologist could have explained to him the concept of taxonomic characters and why photographs of museum exhibits are not useful for species diagnosis. As an MD, he should be able to grasp the concept (e.g. you can't diagnose an illness without an examination in most cases). So he's either woefully uninformed regarding the very basics of the study he's trying to do (and claiming to be an expert in), or he's a charlatan. I find either option to be problematic and the shortcomings of his contribution to be worth noting.

 

I'm also confused as to how his contributions help "bridge the gap" between creationism and science; he's explicitly trying (very badly and quite possibly dishoneslty) to bring the science into question and further the case for creationism - thus widening the gap. Unless the fact that he seemingly accepts geological time, and you see that as a step forward from young earth creationism?

[Robittybob1]

 

....

I'm also confused as to how his contributions help "bridge the gap" between creationism and science; he's explicitly trying (very badly and quite possibly dishoneslty) to bring the science into question and further the case for creationism - thus widening the gap. Unless the fact that he seemingly accepts geological time, and you see that as a step forward from young earth creationism?

Two things I felt were helpful were his admission that none of the larger mammals were found along with the dinosaurs and the acceptance of geological time (if we are right about that too).

After listening to many videos etc on the evolution - creation debate I am intrigued by the Cambrian Explosion. I will set up a new thread to discuss the forum's views on this period.

[Ophiolite]

So it sounds like you also agree his view does not polarize the debate by "saying nothing of relevance to evolution or creation".

Stop being obtuse. I have made I believe his assertions is that species have not changed in millions of years. That absolutely polarises the debate! I offered the only plausible alternative - he was making a trivial statement that "they kind of looked similar" - and noted that in that case, a case I do not believe to be true, then he had said nothing of relevance. Please pay more attention to what is written.

That seems that your view is rather biased.

Of course Strange's view is biased. He is in favour of logic, critical thinking, objectivity, honesty and the scientific method. He is against emotionally based arguments, woolly thinking, agenda driven thought processes, deceit and irrationality. Which of these biases do you find to be wrong?

[Robittybob1]

Stop being obtuse. I have made I believe his assertions is that species have not changed in millions of years. That absolutely polarises the debate! I offered the only plausible alternative - he was making a trivial statement that "they kind of looked similar" - and noted that in that case, a case I do not believe to be true, then he had said nothing of relevance. Please pay more attention to what is written.

Of course Strange's view is biased. He is in favour of logic, critical thinking, objectivity, honesty and the scientific method. He is against emotionally based arguments, woolly thinking, agenda driven thought processes, deceit and irrationality. Which of these biases do you find to be wrong?

We are discussing Werner not Strange.

[Moontanman]

We are discussing Werner not Strange.

 

 

Trust me Werner is Plenty Strange...

[Arete]

Two things I felt were helpful were his admission that none of the larger mammals were found along with the dinosaurs and the acceptance of geological time (if we are right about that too).

After listening to many videos etc on the evolution - creation debate I am intrigued by the Cambrian Explosion. I will set up a new thread to discuss the forum's views on this period.

 

In terms of authoritative people genuinely trying to reconcile religion with modern science, I would strongly recommend both Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala. Both are theists, actually qualified as scientists in relevant fields, and provide perspectives on reconciling religion with the theory of evolution. I would strongly suggest anyone coming to terms with science and religious belief reading pieces by both of them.

 

Werner and his lipstick on a pig version of Creationism really has no place in an intelligent discourse on the topic.