Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
I wanted to be sure that I came across clearly. I don't believe for a second that a person cannot understand or come to the proper conclusion without an advanced degree. However, a degree conferred by an accredited institution does grant extra credibility in academia.
I began studying Creation versus Evolution at the age of 9 (or thereabouts). Kent Hovind came to our church and did a week long seminar on the subject. I was mesmerized. I hung on to every word he was saying, and took his opinions as gospel truth. I've come to learn since that he is highly discredited in the scientific community, and a lot of what he has said over the years has been shown to be completely false or inaccurate. But that's a discussion for another time.
The three leading names in the debate right now (and of course, there are others; but this is based off of who I see on the internet and in atheistic videos of refutations) are Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. Ray Comfort has no degrees. He never pursued higher education. This makes him a nobody in academia. Hen Ham has a more impressive resume of degrees, having a BS in Environmental Biology and a diploma in Education. He has some ground to stand on, but not as much as what some would refer to as a "real" scientist. Environmental biology is a liberal science, meaning that students follow a core degree program, but basically make up their own emphasis. So, with an Environmental Biology degree, Ken Ham would have had to study a little about evolution, but may be just as unversed as a high school student. Or, he could have focused very heavily on it, and knows the ins and outs of it.
That's not to say I don't respect Ken Ham. I do. I like what he is attempting to accomplish. He is also a very skilled debater, and even took on evolution's poster boy Bill Nye (the science guy). Even atheists admitted that Ken Ham won the debate. One news article said, "It was easy to see who the smartest man on the platform was. Unfortunately, it was the guy who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old."
Now, degrees don't necessarily mean knowledge. But as I said, the give credibility. There might be someone on here who knows just as much about physics as I do, but have never taken a physics class. In academia, I will be listened to, while the other is laughed at.
So, I don't want to give the impression that someone who doesn't have the right degree is wrong. But if you're going to speak out about an issue, and you want to be heard, you'd better have the alphabet soup behind your name in order to be taken seriously.
I began studying Creation versus Evolution at the age of 9 (or thereabouts). Kent Hovind came to our church and did a week long seminar on the subject. I was mesmerized. I hung on to every word he was saying, and took his opinions as gospel truth. I've come to learn since that he is highly discredited in the scientific community, and a lot of what he has said over the years has been shown to be completely false or inaccurate. But that's a discussion for another time.
The three leading names in the debate right now (and of course, there are others; but this is based off of who I see on the internet and in atheistic videos of refutations) are Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. Ray Comfort has no degrees. He never pursued higher education. This makes him a nobody in academia. Hen Ham has a more impressive resume of degrees, having a BS in Environmental Biology and a diploma in Education. He has some ground to stand on, but not as much as what some would refer to as a "real" scientist. Environmental biology is a liberal science, meaning that students follow a core degree program, but basically make up their own emphasis. So, with an Environmental Biology degree, Ken Ham would have had to study a little about evolution, but may be just as unversed as a high school student. Or, he could have focused very heavily on it, and knows the ins and outs of it.
That's not to say I don't respect Ken Ham. I do. I like what he is attempting to accomplish. He is also a very skilled debater, and even took on evolution's poster boy Bill Nye (the science guy). Even atheists admitted that Ken Ham won the debate. One news article said, "It was easy to see who the smartest man on the platform was. Unfortunately, it was the guy who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old."
Now, degrees don't necessarily mean knowledge. But as I said, the give credibility. There might be someone on here who knows just as much about physics as I do, but have never taken a physics class. In academia, I will be listened to, while the other is laughed at.
So, I don't want to give the impression that someone who doesn't have the right degree is wrong. But if you're going to speak out about an issue, and you want to be heard, you'd better have the alphabet soup behind your name in order to be taken seriously.
