Tuesday, August 29, 2017

#1889: Lane Lester

We’ll skip Lillie Leonardi – things like this wouldn’t have merited an entry had she not written a book about it, pushed by WND, but even though she did I think we’re all best served by skipping her.

Lane Lester is a Professor of Biology at Emmanuel Missionary College (or, as it is currently known, Andrew University), Georgia – a small, extremist, Pentecostal college that offers non-accredited “education” – and Regional Representative of the Institute for Creation Research. Lester calls himself a “creationist geneticist”, though we have been unable to locate any real research from his hand – instead, Lester appears to write textbooks and articles for non-specialists in various creationist magazines, the purpose of which is outreach, not research, insofar as the goal of creationist “scientists” is, always, to broadcast their ideas and ensnare souls for Jesus, not to actually try to scientifically test their ideas. Now Lester does, indeed, have a real education. That doesn’t make him a scientist, of course, but it does make him qualified to sign various creationist petitions, such as the Discovery Institute’s petition A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and the CMI list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation.

Diagnosis: Scientists are people who do science. Lester is not a scientist, and any attempt to make it look like he is can be safely dismissed. Lunatic fundie, is what he is. Limited impact, but students do attend his sorry excuse for an educational institution, and doing so is probably not free.

1 comment:

  1. I may be a moron, but I do know what is required to obtain a PhD. Nothing, however, is required to "maintain such a degree". Once you have it, it's yours. And even if you did science as part of obtaining the degree, that doesn't mean that you continue to be a scientist after finishing.

    What creationists call "creation science" is not science, but motivated reasoning using the Texas-sharpshooter-fallacy as their "method" (it's axiomatic-deductive, where evidence is accommodate, rather than hypothetic-deductive, if you wish, and thus not science but rather applying the same approach to inquiry as medieval scholastics - that they don't seem to recognize the difference is itself pretty damning).

    I have been unable to locate any science done by Dr. Lester, but if it exists, it's dwarfed by the pseudoscience he is currently engaged in.