Divine revelation and the miraculous are not the enemies of science, but the prerequisite. You will say I am a heretic for believing this; but until the 19th century, this was the understanding of science. Old-earth vs. young-earth, or common-descent vs. independent-descent were never the primary issue, and that is why this particular scientists is being attacked simply for daring to believe that God works behind the scenes to make biology possible.

I wasn’t rude. Although I don’t have a problem with being rude to people obsessed with censoring and firing anyone who talks about Jewish creation stories within the context of science. Perhaps bigots such as this could think about things in terms of the language of science fiction in order to get around their religiously based prejudices. Perhaps people should say that it is possible that there are extraterrestrials who are also extracosmosial and it is possible that “the gods” or the God of gods may have something to do with origins. It is, after all, a creation myth to have Mother Natures given birth to Daughters and so on as some modern pagans suggest:

…Lee Smolin added an ingenious Darwinian spin which reduces the apparent statistical improbability of our existence. In Smolin’s model, universes give birth to daughter universes, which vary in their laws and constants. Daughter universes are born in black holes produced by a parent universe, and they inherit its laws and constants but with some small possibility of random change–’mutation’. Those daughter universes that have what it takes to reproduce (last long enough to make black holes, for instance) are, of course, the universes that pass their laws and constants to their daughters. ….
So universes that have what it takes to make stars are favoured in this cosmic Darwinism.
(The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins :91)

Stories rooted in nature based paganism are being advanced in the name of “science” while anyone who suggests that Jewish creation stories do not necessarily conflict with science down to the last jot and tittle are being censored, fired and so on. Ironically science arose as a result of Jewish theology. And perhaps one need only look to the discrimination of the Nazis against Jewish physicists to see that eliminating the “Jewish influence” will lead to pseudo-science. People obsessed with eliminating Jewish creation stories and monotheism from public life or scientific discussion are the disease of ignorance, pagan superstition and pseudo-science that they purport to cure.

No problemas!

I spent many years as a professor of medicine, and we were very careful about degrees, certifications, and responsibilities. We wore color coded name tags, and even had different kinds of parking permits. Lives literally could depend on it.

So, the whole issue looks different to me. Dr. Austerberry, as another example, made no mention of his professorship.

hmm, maybe it’s a cultural difference. none of my colleagues find the need to wave their degree around in public in order to be taken seriously. usually the content of their thought is enough. I find the same.

it is particularly true when I talk about things outside my field of inquiry. I work in particle physics; it would be absurd and arrogant of me to claim those credentials as reason to believe my pontifications on, say, experimental psychology.

well, good luck to you.

Your point re: Ph.D. is just a bit off. When dealing with creationists I have found that they are commonly claiming fake degrees. Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, etc. are particularly notorious in this regard. I have an earned degree from a real school, and so I see no need to concede that to creationists, or people little or no education.

If we were in an academic setting, there would be no reason to make the point of degrees. But, even then, there are very sharp and finely drawn status markers- which you may learn someday if you graduate. I find the most likely people to disparage the proper use of a degree title are those who lack them.

The “poor listener” observations is painfully true just from reading Gaskell’s deposition. Even his own attorney got annoyed. I would enjoy seeing the video.

@ Chuck Austerberry, December 14th, 2010 | 12:30 pm

Dr. Austerberry, the 2005 version of Gaskell’s web essay, “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation” is attached as exhibit 4 in Gaskell’s deposition. The main difference is that the current version has fewer references to creationist books.