Hmm…ok. I would think his stuff about the retina would be important though.
That work doesn’t appear to be “his” project. He appears to be playing a middle-author support role on these projects where other scientists took the lead role. I sampled several of them just now, and he is not listed as a first or last author in any I saw, nor is he started as a co-first or co-corresponding author. Of course, there might be an exception somewhere, but this is the sort of work we might see from a staff scientist that is not leading a project.
You can see some of his publications here:
As another comparison point, take a look at @glipsnort here: Stephen Schaffner - Google Scholar
Their record is just not even remotely comparable.
@swamidass Don’t you find it odd that Pubmed picks up only 3 papers when Google finds so many more? Did you search on MJ Denton? He has first and last author papers, not just middle. From first rate journals, many of them. Not saying he is world class like Jim Tour, who probably would have won the Nobel except for his view on the origin of life. But he has made genuine contributions. Remind me, why are we having this discussion? Circumstances can greatly influence one’s scientific output. So that doesn’t determine worth, necessarily.
Never commented on Denton’s record before, but I was asked about it.
I don’t know about this. What would have won the Nobel for? I think he would have been on the National Academy if not for his views on the origin of life. The Nobel? I’m not sure. That is not based on quantity of papers.
True.
Yes it is odd. Perhaps because PubMed doesnt include all papers pre-2000? Or is something else going on? With Google, most the publications are pre-2000.
I’m happy to be educated. Can you identify his CV anywhere? I cannot. That might clarify somethings if we care to continue this line.
Though it seems that he is not an active scientist. Is that not correct?
I don’t know. I haven’t asked what he is working on besides writing. He is definitely Old enough to retire.
1 Like
Glpsnort is not a fair comparison as he is a member of a large consortium and nearly all that I saw are middle author. Scientists who work alone or in only small groups have many fewer pubs than anyone from a mega lab. There are many reasons for this.
1 Like
I’m just giving some comparators. I think we agree on the key points here @Agauger.
Denton did legitimate well accepted scientific work. He was not precisely a highly productive researcher, such as someone like James Tour, but that is beside the point. At some point he closed up shop on his scientific work, and started writing ID books for the general public.
What does that mean for the legitimacy or illegitimacy of his ID arguments? Not much at all. The only reason I even touched on this is because @Mark asked. I’m not sure @Agauger that your assessment would be much different.
1 Like
is not representative of “many” Catholics. I would qualify.
I agree that I don’t represent the Catholic Church 
, but I also am not the only one with my views.
Exactly. This is what I meant, that your views are not the ones officially endorsed by the Catholic Church.
Unfortunately when someone who is not familiar with Catholic teaching sees a Catholic espousing some view, it can be confused which views are actually official teachings of the Catholic Church, and which are the personal views of the person (even if the person’s view might be compatible with the official Church position). I am merely clarifying this.
1 Like
But also there are no “offficial” views. The Church has not definitively spoken on the subject.
Exactly, there is no official view, so any view on the subject is not official. This might be clear for Catholics, but for people who are not familiar with Catholicism, it might be confusing.
Agreed. It’s confusing for some Catholics who may have been taught one view or the other as the gospel truth, only to find there many sincere positions with varying scriptural and scientific content, some that do not resist scrutiny, some that carefully examine each evidence multiple times, and some that do not examine the evidence at all but take someone else opinion as true. There are several reasons the Church has not spoken. It’s not deemed essential to clarify (the barbarians are not at the gates) and there is no consensus. And alas, many don’t think this topic, which is so important in my view, is important at all!
2 Likes
I think i have the answer for this one:
Paul’s Romans 5 is used by Augustine to establish Original Sin. This means to them that Adam is not only a real person, but that the context of his first days (or years?), in an Eden, is theologically paramount.
Adam cant be someone from an evolving population… but must be the first whose choices have moral agency!
So “original sin” means that we are to all be perpetually punished for Augustine’s mistake 
1 Like
Pretty much.
1 Like
@Mark you might want to take a look at this if you haven’t already.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/05/traditio-deformis
This view is at the core of all our problems with YECs.
2 Likes
@swamidass and @jongarvey
The Wisdom of Solomon is part of the Eastern Orthodox canon of scripture. Its author clearly believed that Adam was the very first human being.
McKnight summarizes this well:
“we need to observe here that Wisdom of Solomon 7:1 states that each human is “a descendant of the first-formed child28 of earth,” and this appears to indicate that the author believed in what we have labeled the genealogical and (perhaps at some level of science) a biological Adam. This falls well short of the list of markers for believing in a historical Adam, but, like Genesis 5:1’s indication of a genealogical Adam, it is one step toward that historical Adam. The same may be present in Wisdom of Solomon 10:1, where it is said, “Wisdom protected the first-formed father of the world, when he alone had been created."
Excerpt From: McKnight, Scot. “Adam and the Genome.” Baker Publishing Group, 2016-12-30. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=1151878556
I don’t exactly accept inerrancy so I accept that the author was mistaken in this regard. But it seems to me that if an Eastern Orthodox person is also an inerrantist, then he would have to accept this as stating reality.
Can a GA still work given what the Wisdom of Solomon says? CouLd Adam be “first formed” if he isn’t the universal human progenitor?
2 Likes
Perhaps the same question could be asked of Paul’s statement that God formed all nations “from one”
2 Likes
@Mark (@swamidass , @jongarvey )
Orthodox Seminarian
Mark writes:
“I don’t exactly accept inerrancy so I accept that the author was
mistaken in this regard.
But it seems to me that if an Eastern Orthodox person is also an
inerrantist, then he
would have to accept this as stating reality. Can a GA still work
given what the
Wisdom of Solomon says? Could Adam be “first formed” if he isn’t the
universal human progenitor?”
Oh really, Mark? There are lots of things Biblicists accept as reality that are
completely bogus. I think I can say without hesitation, that the great majority
of all of the comments by the Church Fathers regarding Adam and Eve were
based in the belief that Adam was the first human.
It’s another category of the Firmament. But I’m not building a metaphysics on
the Firmament and neither should you.