I did not know that, but are you saying that is a disqualification ? If you googled him, then I assume you saw his eminent faculty awards at Iowa State University.
so called bible thumper scientists cant be trusted. they will ignore all evidence that disagrees with their book: "if conclusions contradict the word of God, the conclusions are wrong no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."biology textbook printed by conservative Christian publisher Bob Jones University Press
vhehn, I have read some of your other posts on subjects other than religion, from which I have gotten the impression that you are an intelligent person. Such a blanket bias that your above statement casts, seems to be beneath you. I have Mr. Boylan's paper in front of me and it is a very well presented hypothesis. His introductory remarks which I quoted are, in my opinion, very rational. The scientific interpretation of the "first cause" is in the eye of the beholder.
Its not the messenger - its the message. the origin of the universe is outside the "provence" of science at this point in time. If you say otherwise you are a fringe loon. It is why I pointed out that there is no direct argument against theism.
this is not the mind of a true scientist: "The issue, of course, will not be settled in a scientific forum, for origins are indeed outside of the true provence of science," this is the mind of someone who does not trust science to answer questions. add that to the fact that he works for a creation group tells us where he is coming from.
My religion? I don't have one. The very fact that you feel impelled to impose on a religion on the nonreligious shows what a fractured state of mind you theists exist in. Your mass psychosis forces you to try to drag everyone down to your level to justify your illogical beliefs but it just doesn't work. Calling a circle a square doesn't make it a square. And calling me "religious" doesn't elevate your fairytale belief system to something worthy of intellectual admiration. As to Boylan's "superior" knowledge of thermodynamics, you may as well assert that he knows more about arithmetic than I do. I guarantee you the latter is no more true than the former. The laws of thermodynamics were well established in the 19th century. It isn't brain surgery ... well, for you, it may as well be, but I managed to ace my thermo course just fine, thanks. I don't need a lecture from a theistic "professor" who lets his superstition override his engineering training.
From reading some of your other comments, I assumed you were a Darwinist, if not, then I offer my apology. It would seem I should apologize also regarding the level of your knowledge regarding thermodynamics and order development, as it would appear by your critique of Mr. Boylan that you have not only been a university professor in a related field, but also the dean of an engineering department at a major state university. And, yes, I agree, it is not "brain surgery", even for me.
I believe in evolution. I'm not wedded to Darwinism but nor am I opposed to it; I believe in whatever theory of evolution best explains the evidence of evolution. Your implication that only a dean of an engineering school can challenge another dean of an engineering school is a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad Authoritatum. I'm supposed to be cowed by some guy spouting nonsense just because he has more letters behind his name than I do. If a math professor told you that 2 + 2 = 5, would you just acquiesce because he's a math professor and you aren't, despite the fact that you KNOW that 2 + 2 = 4? If so, then BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Boylan has been debunked more than once. If you weren't such a sheep, you could have discovered that on your own. There's this thing called "google": http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/thermo_patterson.html