It is science. It is as scientific as your criticisms. Just say its incompetent science. Yet he means to present his ideas in scientific terms and he does. If he has errors its no more/or less then zillions of peoople who write on science.
If a goal is that people go toward Evangelical(not fundamentalist) Christianity well thats a good goal. That does not disqualify his science.
I’m glad for the debate except think people should focus, focus, on main points and points against those points.
That’s absolutely NOT a good goal for someone who claims to be a scientist. Science is in no way about leading people to (or from) any religious ideology at all. If someone’s goal to bring people to their religious beliefs then everything they present as science should be suspect because doing science isn’t the ultimate goal.
3 Likes
I 100% agree. Thank you for being unequivcial about this.
@Robert_Byers, he has far more errors than most scientists.
Falsehood and error does disqualify his science. . God has no need for bad science, errors, and falsehood. Right?
2 Likes
For the same reason that Jeanson organised this set of arguments in a single chapter of his book. They’re all part of the same narrative. Let’s say I did one blog post on why the mutation rate is wrong, another on why his graphs are misleading, another on how his intra-“kind” data doesn’t actually support his case, and another on how he’s ignoring well-known data on time-dependency. A person would have to read all of those blog posts to get the full picture of how his arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny. If you have to read them all anyway, why not have it all in one place, one article? Of course, I’ll do my best to break up the text a bit to make it easier to read, and include a summary to make sure everyone is on the same page at the end.
2 Likes
Dr. Jeanson’s book is not science. It is YEC disguised as science. Dr. Jeanson’s book is completely inadequate to be called an educational value to anyone studying evolutionary science. @Herman_Mays and @evograd have exposed this book for what it is - YEC trash. The book was written to deceive those who’s background isn’t evolutionary science. It is religious dogma disguised as science.
I agree with you. One big posting of the entire review. Make it massive, take down every single claim that Dr Jeanson makes.
The truth is the goal. if this truth leads to truth about god then it is a purpose of a scientist. The same for all.
Conclusions that are called religion are not usually called ideology.
by the way much of the more famous evolutionists do have a purpose to show there is no God/or a need to see a God/or genesis being true.
Nothing wrong with that.
As long as truth and competence are the objectives WHERE it leads people is fair and square.
Jeanson is in his mind doing a great case for what is true. He is a scientist. Whether his stuff is right or wrong.
He is worthy to debate for those who want to say he is wrong.
Truth about god is not the goal nor purpose of a scientist. Scientist looks for truth in science by the methods of science. Science is neutral on whether god exists or not.
Jeanson is not doing science at all. He is doing creationism which is religion. Jeanson is not worthy of debate and frankly is wasting the time and effort of real scientists like Dr. Mays and Evograd who have to expend effort to peer review at piece of work (Jeanson’s book) that wasn’t peer reviewed prior to publication because it could not withstand the scrutiny of the peer review process. The book is trash. We all know that and we thank Dr. Mays and Evograd for providing the expert effort taking out the trash and discarding it to the garbage pile where it belongs.
1 Like