Recently, one of Vince Torley’s posts here attracted a lot of attention: A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution:
Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars … , nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint … More.
So where did all those people come from? One source seems to be a page at Reddit (subreddit?), which offered the following gems from various contributors, starting with Beelzebuddy:
there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution
That’s because there’s no such thing. It’s a Creationist red herring. There is no microevolution, and there is no macroevolution.
There is only evolution.
Along comes GreenGemsOmally
I’m not sure if you know what you are talking about: From John S. Wilkins Historian and Philosopher of Science from the Talk Origins website:
What is macroevolution?
First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, …
I know you are trying to help but giving people inaccurate information could make them look bad when debating a savy creationist.
Who cares? Creationists redefine and misuse words and expressions until they speak a completely different language. Debating Creationists is like playing chess with pigeons.
And so it goes.
The same people who say it is okay to lie, of course pretend outrage that people don’t believe their claims. Or—a chilling thought but worth considering—they are indeed outraged, that we are not so stupid.
It looks increasingly as though they will have to fire their audience and hire another.
Follow UD News at Twitter!