Freethinker,

This the first time I have ever responded to a “blog” site but had been following the exchange between yourself and journeyman, who I take it is your Father, so I thought I might drop in a few perceptions.

First, I am a married male with a 9 year old daughter. I graduated with a MSc in Molecular Microbiology from Victoria University of Wellington (NZ) and completing my PhD in the mid 90’s at John Hopkins. I work as a consultant for an AAM think tank as well as a fellow at a major University in the eastern United States.

Not meaning to be cryptic concerning descriptive detail, anonymity is a consideration in establishment of a profile. One of the points journeyman brought up was the “Holy Cow” of science. The idea of the development scientific dogma and orthodoxy is not new and has been discussed a number of books including Stephen Gould’s book. “ Darwinian Fundamentalism”. In some disciplines of scientific academia skepticism can be a cause for “censor”, “dismissal” or “loss of tenur”. Many scientists see common sense as an impediment to progress not only in physics but in other fields as well. Elevating this outlook to the status of dogma, British biologist Lewis Wolpert declared in “The Unnatural Nature of Science”, “I would almost contend that if something fits with common sense it almost certainly isn’t science”. Dr Wolpert’s view is widely shared. “When I invoke common sense to defend or criticize a theory, scientists invariably roll their eyes.” I am not yet ready with a wife and a young daughter to openly bring skeptical inquiry to question the veracity of claims and theories lacking empirical evidence. Not identifying with the more extreme examples of “skepticism” and “freethinkers” like Bertrand Russell, whose tirade of religious bigotry is almost the antithesis of “rationalist”, I am more inclined to define a skeptic as does Miguel de Unamuna, in his 1924 “Essays and Soliloquies”. “Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found”. This does not mean that truth cannot be found but a skeptic attempts to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather that accepting claims on faith. Questioning the validity of evidences within various disciplines supporting the evolutionary thesis can result in a very short career in the scientific community. One of my colleagues at a University in the Northwest United States brought up some obvious difficulties with gradual, random development as it relates to irreducible complexity…and found that his grant had been terminated…and he would no longer be rejoining the facility the following year. As I said, I am not ready for that yet.


Your father (Journeyman) also brought up some excellent points, although rather simplistically, regarding specific assumptions of the macroevolutionary theory which is supported more on a priori philosophical assumption than on empirical evidence. The geologic collumn and its comparisons to actual fossil layers in sedimentary strata unaffected by upheaval or turnovers; the fallacies of Darwin’s examples of natural selection; the dozens of examples of fraud or the undeniable difficulties of irreducible complexity or uniformitarianism as it relates to macroevolution. I applaud those who have the courage to challenge the “holy cow” of scientific orthodoxy and dogma. Some of us are not in the position to do so without dire consequences.

Also one more point regarding your “Burden of Proof” which is inaccurate in three areas:

1) The Burden of Proof (onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in legal action only.
2) The belief in God (Thesism) is based upon faith and therefore does not qualify under a presentation of prima facia evidence..
3) The Burden of Proof ordinarily lies with “the one who complains” (necessitas incumbit ei que agit). In other words, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff (the one who complains or makes a claim) in a lawsuit to provide evidence supporting the claim against the defendant. but this burden of proof or persuasion, which began with the plaintiff may very quickly shift to the defendant as the case proceeds. As an example:

Plaintiff’s claim: The defendant robbed my house.
Proof: I saw him coming out of the back of my house with the television set.
(This may or may not be true but is determined as the case progresses)

Defendants Response: No I didn’t!! (He can respond to affirm or deny the claim)
Proof: I was at home with my wife. (alibi or affirmative defense)

Let’s try this again:

Plaintiff’s claim: I believe there is a creator God.
Proof: I see the evidence of intelligent design in the complexity of life forms, order and thought, intelligence and sentience.
(This may or may not be true but is determined as the case progresses)

Defendants Response: No there is not!!
Proof: Evolutionary theory and Uniformitarianism

At this point the burden of proof is squarely on those in the scientific community to provide verifiable evidence and allow the freedom of skeptical inquiry without fear of retaliation.