German paleontologist and entomologist, Günter Bechly, is famous for his work on dragonflies in the fossil record. However, after studying the bacterial flagellum, he became convinced that Darwinism could not explain its origin. A former atheist, he has since become a Christian and has endorsed intelligent design:



He has stated his total opposition to naturalism, atheism and materialism on his website: https://gbechly.jimdo.com/

I am a Roman Catholic Christian and strongly oppose atheism, materialism, naturalism, and scientism. I have not become a Christian in spite of being a scientist but because of it. My conversion was based on a critical evaluation of empirical data and philosophical arguments, following the evidence wherever it leads. I am skeptical of the Neodarwinian theory of macroevolution and support Intelligent Design theory for purely scientific reasons.

No cure for stupid decisions...

Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly | Evolution News
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikip ... er-bechly/
Oct 10, 2017 - Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany.

what's the term for reversion to infantile delusion....

Wortfish wrote:German paleontologist and entomologist, Günter Bechly, is famous for his work on dragonflies in the fossil record. However, after studying the bacterial flagellum, he became convinced that Darwinism could not explain its origin.

That just demonstrates he either doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, or being dishonest.

Wortfish wrote: A former atheist, he has since become a Christian and has endorsed intelligent design:

Only makes him more of an idiot or dishonest person.

Wortfish wrote:

He has stated his total opposition to naturalism, atheism and materialism on his website: https://gbechly.jimdo.com/

I am a Roman Catholic Christian and strongly oppose atheism, materialism, naturalism, and scientism. I have not become a Christian in spite of being a scientist but because of it. My conversion was based on a critical evaluation of empirical data and philosophical arguments, following the evidence wherever it leads. I am skeptical of the Neodarwinian theory of macroevolution and support Intelligent Design theory for purely scientific reasons.

Like every other creationist he fails completely to present even a single sound scientific reason.

Whenever I hear the word "philosophical" I reach for my Luger.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Like every other creationist he fails completely to present even a single sound scientific reason.

Actually, he does. He claims that the ontogenesis of the bacterial flagellum shows that it couldn't have been built by recruiting precursor parts.

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Like every other creationist he fails completely to present even a single sound scientific reason.

Actually, he does.

Only if you (dishonestly pretend to) not understand what scientific reasoning is.

Wortfish wrote:He claims that the ontogenesis of the bacterial flagellum shows that it couldn't have been built by recruiting precursor parts.

Which is a blind assertion, that, at best would say something about bacterial flagelli, not evolution as a whole.
But since it doesnt do that, my original comment stands: no scientific reason whatsoever.

Macdoc wrote:
what's the term for reversion to infantile delusion....

He goes on to say the following:

"I strongly reject the modern surrogate religion of atheistic naturalism (esp. "New Atheism"), secular humanism, eliminative materialism, functionalist physicalism, mechanistic determinism, and reductionistic scientism as incoherent, irrational, empirically refuted, and ultimately absurd faith."

Wortfish wrote:

Macdoc wrote:
what's the term for reversion to infantile delusion....

He goes on to say the following:

"I strongly reject the modern surrogate religion of atheistic naturalism (esp. "New Atheism"), secular humanism, eliminative materialism, functionalist physicalism, mechanistic determinism, and reductionistic scientism as incoherent, irrational, empirically refuted, and ultimately absurd faith."

What he blindly asserts about a silly collection of straw-men is completely irrelevant.

Interesting. He says he's a Catholic, yet the Pope accepts evolution. I guess he doesn't believe in Papal infallibility either.

Wortfish wrote:German paleontologist and entomologist, Günter Bechly, is famous for his work on dragonflies in the fossil record. However, after studying the bacterial flagellum, he became convinced that Darwinism could not explain its origin. A former atheist, he has since become a Christian and has endorsed intelligent design:



He has stated his total opposition to naturalism, atheism and materialism on his website: https://gbechly.jimdo.com/

I am a Roman Catholic Christian and strongly oppose atheism, materialism, naturalism, and scientism. I have not become a Christian in spite of being a scientist but because of it. My conversion was based on a critical evaluation of empirical data and philosophical arguments, following the evidence wherever it leads. I am skeptical of the Neodarwinian theory of macroevolution and support Intelligent Design theory for purely scientific reasons.

Sad to see a scientist fooled by a neat bit of evolution:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex
By Michael Le Page
Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex.
...

Actually, evolution naturally produces "irreducible complexity" - it's the way it works when there are multiple independently evolved components of a system, that can then work together to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Animavore wrote:Interesting. He says he's a Catholic, yet the Pope accepts evolution. I guess he doesn't believe in Papal infallibility either.

Isn't it the last 4 or 5 popes already?

I hope a friend of Günter Bechly will have a word in his ear about how evolutionary biology can work.

zulumoose wrote:

Animavore wrote:Interesting. He says he's a Catholic, yet the Pope accepts evolution. I guess he doesn't believe in Papal infallibility either.

Isn't it the last 4 or 5 popes already?

Yeah, I think Pope Pius was the first to officially state there was no conflict between evolution and Catholicism.

Animavore wrote:Interesting. He says he's a Catholic, yet the Pope accepts evolution. I guess he doesn't believe in Papal infallibility either.

He accepts common descent, just not Neo-Darwinian evolutionism. He is a saltationist.

DavidMcC wrote:I hope a friend of Günter Bechly will have a word in his ear about how evolutionary biology can work.

He is a well-known palaeontologist. That's why the ID camp regards his defection as akin to a top KGB operative joining the CIA (in the days of the Cold War).

Animavore wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

Animavore wrote:Interesting. He says he's a Catholic, yet the Pope accepts evolution. I guess he doesn't believe in Papal infallibility either.

Isn't it the last 4 or 5 popes already?

Yeah, I think Pope Pius was the first to officially state there was no conflict between evolution and Catholicism.

Saying he's a Catholic isn't the problem. A supposed scientist denying evolution IS, whether he's a Catholic or not.

Wortfish wrote:

Animavore wrote:Interesting. He says he's a Catholic, yet the Pope accepts evolution. I guess he doesn't believe in Papal infallibility either.

He accepts common descent, just not Neo-Darwinian evolutionism. He is a saltationist.

Well that's just stupid.

Anyway, the Pope accepts Darwinism.

Wortfish wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I hope a friend of Günter Bechly will have a word in his ear about how evolutionary biology can work.

He is a well-known palaeontologist. That's why the ID camp regards his defection as akin to a top KGB operative joining the CIA (in the days of the Cold War).

A tacit admission that ID proponents are ideologues fighting what they believe is an ideological war and this had nothing to do with a debate over sscientific facts.

Wortfish wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I hope a friend of Günter Bechly will have a word in his ear about how evolutionary biology can work.

He is a well-known palaeontologist. That's why the ID camp regards his defection as akin to a top KGB operative joining the CIA (in the days of the Cold War).

All the more reason why it is important to get him to think again. He needs to re-think his evolutionary biology theory.