Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

by Abaddon 69 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abaddon

  Here we have an article about the dodo by Dr. Jerry Bergman;

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp

  It discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;

  Now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.

  But, the thing is, although the various facts bought up in the article seem sound, the conclusion is unfounded.

  The dodo died out because of extensive hunting by humans, and the introduction of non-native animals it was not equiped to deal with. It died out in less then 200 years.

  There is nothing in this that validates the statement 'the facts do not support the evolutionary myth'. I think he's saying that we now know dodoes were not that fat and slow, and that therefore it wasn't natural selection that kiled them.

  Unless I'm missing something...

  Unless someone can point out what I'm missing, it seems that the author is either not that clear on evolutionary theory, is making a mistake, or is attaching a conclusion to an article that he knows isn't supported by the article because he has an agenda.

  Obviously a reputable scientist can have gaps in their knowledge, and can make mistakes.

  The other article that caught my eye on this respected member of the Scientific Creationist Community was 'Creationism and the Problem of Homosexual Behaviour'.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v9n1_homosex.asp

  My reading of it would indicate that several important pieces of research have been excluded from his study; I'd have to look up the dates that they were published, as it might just be that the author has accidentally left an article that is now out-of-date on the website, rather than excluding pertinant data when writing his article.

  It is now commonly accepted that male homosexuality is largely irrelevent as regards evolutionary biology, as the gene that seems to influence some male homosexual's inclination is on the X chromosome (thus the old arguement that 'it's not natural, they'd die out if it was geneticly linked' fails). Twin studies have also shown a huge genetic effect on sexual oriontation.

  It would be interesting if Dr. Bergman were to revist this article and update it, and also perhaps address lesbianism in it.
• 

  funkyderek

  Abaddon,

  I noticed the same thing when I read that article yesterday (while checking Dr. Bergman's credentials). The second sentence in the article shows Dr. Bergman's apparent ignorance:

  This non-flying bird which allegedly was 'obviously unfit' became extinct as evolution would expect, and is often used as a prime example of natural selection and proof of how evolution works.

  Dr. Bergman is correct in that the dodo is often used as an example of natural selection but not as one that was "obviously unfit", rather it was very well adapted to it's environment. Only when it's environment suddenly changed was the dodo in danger. The dodo is a perfect example of natural selection in action. Dr. Bergman has chosen to present a 'strawman' version of what he thinks evolutionists believe, and then done a pretty poor job of knocking it down.

  I found it difficult to believe that someone who has seven degrees including a PhD in human biology could make such elementary mistakes (and make them so frequently). So I did some further checking on Dr. Bergman's credentials.

  According to the Answers in Genesis site:

  Jerry Bergman has seven degrees including:

  • Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University
  • Ph.D. in evaluation and research from Wayne State University
  • M.S. in psychology from Wayne State University
  • M.A. in sociology from Bowling Green State University
  • B.S. in psychology from Wayne State University

  The only degree that's really relevant to the subject is his PhD from Columbia Pacific University. I have to say initially, I was baffled as to how someone could obtain a doctorate in biology with such a poor knowledge of evolutionary theory. Well, it turns out he didn't. Columbia Pacific University was a private nonaccredited correspondence school. It was closed down by the State of California in 2001. For details, see: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/cpu.html

  It's not a real university which is probably why Dr. Bergman seems to know less than he should about biology.

  Wayne State University appears to be a bona fide accredited university and I have no reason to believe that the degrees Dr. Bergman obtained there are suspect in any way.

  Bowling Green State University is also a genuine university and again, I don't doubt that Dr. Bergman's qualification therefrom is genuine. In fact, they even employed him - at least for a while.

  I've no idea about the two degrees that aren't listed here. Perhaps Dr. Bergman would care to enlighten us for the sake of completeness.
• 

  Osarsif

  http://talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
  http://talkorigins.org/faqs/bergman-and-racism.html
• 

  rem

  Great detective work, funkyderek!

  rem
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  It is a good idea to check your facts before you announce them to the world, especially if your ideas are demeaning or derogatory. Also, there are rules about this on this site. When I have the time, I will try to respond. To start, check out the following: http://www.freeminds.org/african/bergman.htm http://www.rae.org/BergmanTenure.htm http://www.rae.org/notracist.html By the way, I have close to 9 degrees (and am working on 2 more, both PhD's), and have 3 in the life and health sciences from a medical school and have taught biology (and evolution) at the college level for 17 years.
• 

  Abaddon

  Dr. Bergman, why don't you actually try to defend the article on the Dodo? Please explain your statement;

  "Now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth"

  Which facts? Explain this. Your arguement seems to be;

  1/ People gave the Dodo as an example of survival of the fittest.

  2/ Many drawings of the Dodo gave the wrong impression regarding its weight and mobility.

  3/ It is now known it was a leaner more mobile bird.

  4/ Therefore, it didn't die out because it was unfit.

  5/ Therefore evolution is a myth.

  No 4/ is untrue. If it didn't die out because it was 'unfit' in evolutionary terms (i.e. unable to compete for resources or avoid predation to such an extent it became extinct), then why did it die out?

  Without succesfully supporting 4/, your whole arguement fails. Of course, my interpretation of your arguement might be wrong, in which case, please correct me.

  Your comment regarding the number of degrees you have is not impressive. I think it's called the aristocratic fallacy.

  Your knowledge in most areas you have studied has not been challanged, rather, it is your lack of proper qualifications in the biological sciences. The URLs you provide all have NO bearing on your knowledge as a biologist of any sort... something you must realise. Therefore, using proofs of the degree areas that weren't challanged is what I believe is called a strawman arguement; someone says 'you don't know about fish', and the person addressed responds 'see what a good carpenter I am, check your facts before you announce them to the world, especially if your ideas are demeaning or derogatory'.

  I would also appreciate you updating the essay on homosexuality you wrote in 1995. I would be fascinated to see how you rspond to the latest research in the area. In the meantime, as a man of your standing would not want to intentionally deceive someone, I'm sure you'll want to have the essay taken off the website it is on - such out-dated research does do your reputation any service.

  slight change to penultimate paragraph to make point about strawman arguement clearer
• 

  funkyderek

  Dr. Bergman,

  It is a good idea to check your facts before you announce them to the world, especially if your ideas are demeaning or derogatory.

  I'm guessing this is addressed to me although neither the links you posted nor the claim that you "have close to 9 degrees" (eight, perhaps?) answer the points I raised.

  In any case I agree about checking your facts.. And yes, it is a potentially demeaning and derogatory claim, that you are woefully ignorant in a subject about which you claim to be an expert and that your PhD in biology is from an unaccredited institution - which has since been closed down - and therefore does not carry as much weight as a real degree would. I would certainly never have made it without evidence.

  If quackwatch.org isn't good enough for you, here's the direct link to the website of the California Department of Consumer Affairs who ordered the closure of Columbia Pacific University: http://www.dca.ca.gov/press_releases/990210.htm

  The reasons cited included the following:

  • awarded excessive credit for prior experiential learning to many students;
  • failed to employ duly qualified faculty; and
  • failed to meet various requirements for issuing Ph.D. degrees

  The evidence for your lack of knowledge in biology (I'm assuming ignorance rather than deliberate subterfuge) was provided in the arguments Abaddon and I made about your article on the dodo. Perhaps you'd like to address those if you think our arguments are flawed.

  I made no claims as to your credentials in any area other than biology. As far as I know, the rest of your qualifications may well be genuine.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  My response is in bold. your statement;

  "Now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth"

  Which facts? Explain this. Your arguement seems to be;

  1/ People gave the Dodo as an example of survival of the fittest.

  2/ Many drawings of the Dodo gave the wrong impression regarding its weight and mobility.

  3/ It is now known it was a leaner more mobile bird.

  4/ Therefore, it didn't die out because it was unfit. I noted that it died out because of human irresponsibility, and not because it was unfit. It was very fit before man arrived on the island.

  5/ Therefore evolution is a myth. I never said this but that, in this case, only that the facts do not support the common myth.

  No 4/ is untrue. If it didn't die out because it was 'unfit' in evolutionary terms (i.e. unable to compete for resources or avoid predation to such an extent it became extinct), then why did it die out? It died out because of human irresponsibility. You imply that because humans can wipe out all life on this planet (and have wiped out some life forms, such as the passenger pigeon) that this proves the standard theory of evolution is true (from the goo to you by way of the zoo by copying errors).

  Without succesfully supporting 4/, your whole arguement fails. Of course, my interpretation of your arguement might be wrong, in which case, please correct me. I hope I did above.

  Your comment regarding the number of degrees you have is not impressive. I think it's called the aristocratic fallacy. I was responding to the claims that I did not have a background in biology when, in fact, I have well over a 100 quarter hours in the field from several universities.

  Your knowledge in most areas you have studied has not been challanged, rather, it is your lack of proper qualifications in the biological sciences. The URLs you provide all have NO bearing on your knowledge as a biologist of any sort... something you must realise. The URLs I provided have no bearing on my knowledge as a biologist but do respond to some of the other charges. I have spent most of my career teaching in the life science area and have several graduate degrees in this and related areas aside from the one from CPU. I am working on an article responding to the charges against CPU and will post it soon. I would also appreciate you updating the essay on homosexuality you wrote in 1995. I would be fascinated to see how you rspond to the latest research in the area. In the meantime, as a man of your standing would not want to intentionally deceive someone, I'm sure you'll want to have the essay taken off the website it is on - such out-dated research does do your reputation any service . I am working on this. Much excellent material has been published in the past few years, such as the study in the American Journal of Sociology (2002 vol 107 pp. 1179-1205) on twins (both identical and fraternal) that found no evidence exists for a genetic cause of homosexuality. This study is one of the largest ever done. It also was published in the top journal in the field. Hope that this helps. Thanks for your feedback.

  In any case I agree about checking your facts.. And yes, it is a potentially demeaning and derogatory claim, that you are woefully ignorant in a subject about which you claim to be an expert and that your PhD in biology is from an unaccredited institution - which has since been closed down - and therefore does not carry as much weight as a real degree would. I would certainly never have made it without evidence. When I earned my degree in 1990 from there it was fully licensed by the state and was not a diploma mill. The reasons behind the state's action is more complex. Also, they are still operating in another state (and are fully licensed there)
• 

  funkyderek

  I noted that it died out because of human irresponsibility, and not because it was unfit. It was very fit before man arrived on the island.

  That's correct. And that's exactly what the standard evolutinary model says. Your version of it however reads as follows:

  This non-flying bird which allegedly was 'obviously unfit' became extinct as evolution would expect, and is often used as a prime example of natural selection and proof of how evolution works.

  Dr. Bergman, it's clear that you still don't understand the evolutionary position. I responded above to your mistake but either you missed it or didn't understand. Please read the following article so you can understand the oppositon's arguments and won't have to waste time attacking a strawman.

  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0227_0228_dodo.html
• 

  funkyderek

  When I earned my degree in 1990 from there it was fully licensed by the state and was not a diploma mill. The reasons behind the state's action is more complex. Also, they are still operating in another state (and are fully licensed there)

  When you say "fully licensed" do you mean accredited?

  Some more info on Columbia Pacific and Commonwealth Pacific:

  http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/women_rebuttal_from_uranus/school.htm
  http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/dm1.html
  http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/dec30_99/ruling.html