Evolutionist Authors, Like Creationist Authors Are Only Human

NOTE: IIDB did not allow discussion on this thread. They closed the thread within minutes of my posting it. Click HERE.

If you cannot see the type, the caption says this is “Robert Boyle.”

In the last week or so, people here were giving Dr. Jerry Bergman a hard time about some typos in his footnotes … their message was clear … “Bergman is incompetent because of these things.”

But what if we were that hard on Evolutionist authors, such as the one who wrote this Nature article …

Do you see anything wrong with this picture? That’s Sir Isaac Newton, not Robert Boyle. Got to http://www.granger.com/ and put both names into the search box and see for yourself. But don’t be too hard on this author. And lighten up on creationist authors while you’re at it. After all, they are only human too.


Creationist Author Bergman on the Cutting Edge
Bergman’s research supported by Recent Nature & Science Articles
Virus Knowledge Poll
Attack Jerry Bergman Thread
Nice Analysis of Bergman’s Virus Ecology

5 Responses to “Evolutionist Authors, Like Creationist Authors Are Only Human”

  1. doramia says:

    Are you implying that Stephen Shapin lied about his credentials and got fired for it? Or that Mr Shapin didn’t know even the basics of his subject? Because despite exhausting the appeals process, that’s what happened to Dr Bergman. And his paper is littered with simple errors. Do compare Apples with Apples, AFDave.

  2. dhawkinsmo says:

    Follow the links I provided. You will find that Bergman did not lie about his credentials. The appeal was related to his tenure, not some supposed ethics violation.

    Additional posts about Bergman’s tenure denial are off topic and will be deleted. This thread is about Bergman’s paper and Shapin’s paper.

  3. dhawkinsmo says:

    By the way, if you really want to argue with me about something on a different topic, you can usually find me at IIDB. They don’t give me full freedom there because I am a creationist — they lock my threads that they don’t like — but I do participate as far as my “dog leash” allows.

  4. occamsaftershave says:

    In the last week or so, people here were giving Dr. Jerry Bergman a hard time about some typos in his footnotes … their message was clear … “Bergman is incompetent because of these things.”

    That is a false and misleading statement. Bergman did not make a ‘typo’ in his footnotes. He deliberately changed a key word in the title of a referenced article to make it look like the article supported Bergman’s claims when in fact it did not.

    Bergman cites the 1996 article by Phyllida Brown as “How the parasite learnt to Walk. New Scientist. 152(2056):32-36” (bolding mine) Notice the capitalized word “Walk”

    The actual article title was

    How the parasite learnt to kill (bolding mine)
    Brown, P
    New Scientist [NEW SCI.]. Vol. 152, no. 2056, pp. 32-36. Nov 1996.


    The article describes how the cholera bacteria gets its deadly toxin from a virus that inserts its own genetic material into the bacteria. From the article:

    IT SOUNDS so extraordinary that it could almost be a Just-So story. But the tale of how the once-harmless cholera bacterium got its toxin and so became a killer is no fireside yarn. Instead, it’s the all-too-real finding of years of sophisticated molecular detective work and its implications, announced this summer, that should make anyone with a normal gut just a little nervous.
    It turns out that the real “owner” of the toxin that paralyses the gut in cholera sufferers is not the cholera bacterium, Vibrio cholerae, at all, but a tiny, thread-like virus that infects V. cholerae and inserts its own genetic material— including the genes for the toxin—into the bacterial genome

    There is no simple typo here, but a deliberate attempt to deceive as the Brown article directly contradicts Bergman’s claim that viruses were “designed” to be benign.

    This deliberate deception by Bergman, as well as documented instances of his incompetence in the field of virology were pointed out by multiple posters.

    Anyone honestly interested in the TRUTH will acknowledge this deception by Bergman, and not try to hand-wave it away.

  5. dhawkinsmo says:

    Several points for “occamsaftershave” …
    1) It’s pretty tough to show that someone is being DELIBERATE with regard to an incorrect citation.
    2) What dubious motive would Bergman have for changing the word “kill” to “walk”? The word “kill” would support his thesis better than the word “walk” since one of his main points is that viruses used to be good, but since the Fall, they have “learned to kill.”
    3) Have you communicated with Bergman to investigate your claim? I have notified the editors of the original article and they thanked me and said they will change the web version.
    4) This is a libelous claim against a working scientist and it is not the first time you have committed libel on internet forums. You have done so on at least two other occasions.
    5) Libelous claims are a serious violation of IIDB rules, hence of this blog’s rules also. Your subsequent posts will be moderated before being made visible.

    If you would like to continue posting here, please post a retraction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *