Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

Kevin O'Brien (
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 10:30:21 -0600

>I asked you if you were a working scientist and you did not answer.

Yes I did; let me repeat my answer for you: "As a matter of fact yes; I
have a MS in Biochemistry specializing in protein chemistry and enzymology,
with over 15 years experience in research."

>your information, there is scientific prejudice even in areas not as
>contested as in the area of the question of origins.

Only against bad data and sloppy logic, not fundamental beliefs.

>I have experienced that....

Considering the sloppy logic and bald assertions you have made in these
posts, I'm not surprised.

>and known of many cases in my 35 years of publishing in scientific

If your papers have been anything like these posts, again I'm not surprised.

>I believe in a Creator and my papers get published. That proves that my
>ideas and work are acceptable by the scientific community.

Which also proves that there is no prejudice against creationists, as long
as they produce good data and use good logic. You have just contradicted
your own claims above.

>In areas of
>research where new ideas are proposed, then the going gets more difficult.
>People oppose new ideas. It is the nature of the beast.

SOME people do; others embrace them. You are using a hasty generalization,
which is a logical fallacy; see what I mean about sloppy logic?


You may believe that personally, but before you can convince me of this you
will have to provide some evidence that it is true; without evidence this is
simply your opinion, and I do not respect you well enough to accept your
opinion as fact.

>You say that we will figure out the question of origins. Let me quote you a
>verse: "Professing to be wise, they became fools," Rom. 1:22.

Is that suppose to be a scientific rebuttal to my scientific claim? It
sounds to me like you are the one who is prejudiced against new ideas.

>Speaking of ignorance. Do you know the importance and problem involved in
>determining the values of fundamental constants? Have you ever published a
>paper on this problem? Do you know the names of famous physicists who have
>worked on this problem without success?

I freely confess I am ignorant of these specific details; I also know that
there are just as many physicists who are confident that we are making
steady progress and that it is just a matter of time. You are engaging in
the appeal from ignorance fallacy: because no one has established how the
values of the fundamental constants were fixed, it is an impossible task.
See what I mean about sloppy logic?

>If it is not obvious to you that the theory of how life came from nonliving
>matter is astronomically more difficult than that of the values of the
>fundamental constants, then you do not know what matter is nor what life
>nor what a fundamental constants is.

On the contrary, I appear to understand the nature of life and abiogenesis
better than you do. But you don't have to take my word for it; if you would
read the scientific literature for a change instead of relying on your own
ignorance, you would see that we have in fact been able to create life in
the laboratory. Therefore, the problem is not as difficult as you may think
it is.

Kevin L. O'Brien