Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[WildcatNC]

Well I have to say, this guy has me totally stumped!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L43-WFQh1Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRE-CbNlKmU

 

[Bat-Mite]

I love how he's basically arguing that biology is stupid because you can learn new things about it.

Meanwhile, it's sensible to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that a talking snake played a pivotal role in the course of human history.

 

[JAK®]

Look at you defending atheism with the tenacity of a religious yahoo.

Am I doing this? I don't think I am. I mean, I haven't killed anyone yet.

 

[WildcatNC]

Am I doing this? I don't think I am. I mean, I haven't killed anyone yet.

t:

 

[8wid]

I love how he's basically arguing that biology is stupid because you can learn new things about it.

Meanwhile, it's sensible to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that a talking snake played a pivotal role in the course of human history.

Not to mention the woman made from bone in the chest cavity and a tree that can teaches good and evil even though Eve is tempted by sin before she eats from it. The Earth being formed before the stars is total proof too.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I am an atheist, but I'm going to throw Dawkins in the "leave it" category.

Recently I'd been reading and rereading books on Evolution, my favorite science, so I thought I try The Selfish Gene one more time because I've never gotten through it. I wanted to try Climbing Mount Improbable and The Greatest Show on Earth next, but I resolved to finish the one book of his I own. I always found it strange I could never finish one of his books, since I rather like his lectures, and agree with him in many cases (and not in others). Where we disagree honestly should not deter me from his work because I've disagreed with a lot of things I've read, and even have some theories of my own on birds and mammals for which I've yet to read evidence. I also agree strongly with the pursuit of Evolutionary Psychology although many evolution books I read are heavily critical of it.

So what's wrong with Dawkins. Well, I finally figured it out. The man takes forever to make a point and is way to wordy. I was reading the fourth chapter of The Selfish Gene and began to realize he had gone nearly five pages talking about everything from sidewinder missiles, to computers that play chess, to even other types of supercomputers in a discussion about neurons in the brain. Every time making the point that these things were very interesting but not nearly as complex as the brain. There were some interesting facts peppered throughout about neurons, nerves and such, most of which I knew, but honestly he could've deleted nearly two thirds of what I had read thus far.

One thing I utterly detest in science literature, which is found by the pound in Dawkin's writings is the word "creationist". I understand Dawkins and others frustrations, because I share them, but I don't want to read about them in the middle of a book of genetics or fossils. That time writing could've been spent on explaining or referencing another piece of evidence.

This plagued another book I recently finished called Why Evolution is True. The book is a nice horizon view of Evolution but it probably wastes about one hundred pages reiterating that creationists don't believe this stuff, which wasn't news to me. Even my 700 page textbooks I bought contain sections on "special creation" and "intelligent design", and to me, giving them lip service is exactly the problem.

I appreciate my textbooks for reference purposes, but I like my general reader books for enjoyment. I can't tout a textbook to the beach or to work, and I like to mark them up so I prefer being upright when I read them. I don't mind discussions of religion in science books as long as I'm aware that's what I'm getting into, especially in books that are attempting to explain potential evolutionary reasons for religion. I would like to find [more] books on Evolution that don't contain needless asides on what creationists have to say or what they think. I have a firm grasp on that and decided I didn't agree with it quite some time ago. I'm sure some of the more science literate hypsters can reccommend something to me. There are definitely some books on the market that intrigue me but if I have to read a creationist argument amidst a science discussion again I'm gonna have an annuerysm.

 

[DBryan]

I don't think many creationists read these books anyway.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I don't think many creationists read these books anyway.

Yeah, seriously.

 

[Bill]

I have both The Greatest Show on Earth and Why Evolution is True, and I still can't get through Dawkins' book. I think Jerry Coyne is less abrasive than Dawkins when it comes to references to Creationists, and since both books are attempts at educating the average person about the subject, they may feel the layperson will be more familiar with the Creationist version of Evolution than the one of Science. They are not written for the Scientist, most Scientists who are in the field already know the evidence and are familiar with the experiments outlined.

Honestly, I'd point people to the Talkorigins website which is probably the best online reference point for both Evolution and Creationism. There are references for reading material for every single essay and article on the site. I can't think of a better place for proponents of either side to go to learn more about each and the issues between the two.

 

[Saint]

Some atheists are actively trying to persuade others to abandon religion by showing them the 'truth' that there is no god(s). Atheist groups are putting up billboards, passing out pamphlets, and actively debating against theists on why they believe in not having a belief. Atheism today is revolving into a religion. Look at this thread. How many people in here are actively trying to show the light to the believers living in the dark?

Ah, I see: atheists handing out pamphlets, putting up billboards, persuading and arguing with people makes atheism a religion. Therefore, your argument is that any time someone champions an idea, tries to spread it around, tell other people about it, or get involved in debate about it, that is religious activity, and the idea has become a religion.

So, you think DC Comics New 52 is a religion, then.

Important fact: there are certainly people who treat atheism like a religion, but that doesn't make it one. Period.

 

[DBryan]

He's trolling. Just put him on ignore.

 

[Dr.]

One thing I utterly detest in science literature, which is found by the pound in Dawkin's writings is the word "creationist". I understand Dawkins and others frustrations, because I share them, but I don't want to read about them in the middle of a book of genetics or fossils. That time writing could've been spent on explaining or referencing another piece of evidence.

This plagued another book I recently finished called Why Evolution is True. The book is a nice horizon view of Evolution but it probably wastes about one hundred pages reiterating that creationists don't believe this stuff, which wasn't news to me. Even my 700 page textbooks I bought contain sections on "special creation" and "intelligent design", and to me, giving them lip service is exactly the problem.

Why Evolution is True is a book for a general readership. And the sad fact is, more than 40% of the US public thinks evolution is false. Of the remaining (those who might actually read the book), most have likely been exposed to creationist arguments, have questions about those arguments and lack the expertise to counter them. So, almost by default, a popular introduction on the evidence for evolution also has to be a critique of the “evidence” for creationism.

Academic textbooks, in contrast, are more formal and focused. They can just present the straight science and, typically, don’t bother with the pseudo-science.

 

[DBryan]

Do we have any creationists on this forum?

What do creationists think of the lapradoodle?

I mean, do creationists, despite incontrovertible evidence, believe the lapradoodle has existed as long as all other animals?

Doesn't dog breeding, and pretty relatively new species of dog within human history, disprove anti-evolutionist ideas?

 

[Bill]

Do we have any creationists on this forum?

What do creationists think of the lapradoodle?

I mean, do creationists, despite incontrovertible evidence, believe the lapradoodle has existed as long as all other animals?

Doesn't dog breeding, and pretty relatively new species of dog within human history, disprove anti-evolutionist ideas?

To the Creationist, it's still a dog. And not really a new species since it can still mate and produce viable offspring with other breeds of dogs. But, since this dog, and all other breeds came into being through selective breeding, it's still a wonderful look at how Evolution can work at diversity under the species level in a relatively short time.

 

[random_havoc]

Guys, I encourage you to better familiarize yourselves with what scientists who are creationists believe rather than how laymen on the topic may phrase it.

Here's an example of how they would refer to your dog question. Note: they don't deny that mutations occur, or even that they can eventually equal large changes, but as the article points out that still isn't enough to prove molecules to man evolution.

http://creation.com/gain-of-function-mutations-at-a-loss-to-explain-molecules-to-man-evolution

 

[random_havoc]

To the Creationist, it's still a dog. And not really a new species since it can still mate and produce viable offspring with other breeds of dogs. But, since this dog, and all other breeds came into being through selective breeding, it's still a wonderful look at how Evolution can work at diversity under the species level in a relatively short time.

You need to define your terms. If by "evolution" you're referring to getting to people from prehistoric goo then it isn't evolution at all. It's a mutation which comes from a loss in genetic information. Such mutations cannot, by definition, be the kind of evolution that would lead to mankind because that would require massive massive amounts of gains in genetic information, not losses.

 

[Dr.]

You need to define your terms. If by "evolution" you're referring to getting to people from prehistoric goo then it isn't evolution at all. It's a mutation which comes from a loss in genetic information. Such mutations cannot, by definition, be the kind of evolution that would lead to mankind because that would require massive massive amounts of gains in genetic information, not losses.

Can you clarify what you mean? The “evolution of complexity” (say, a complex genome from a simpler one) is a major pillar of evolution theory. An argument against it, it seems to me, is an argument for creationism – and I’m not sure that’s what you meant.

 

[Bill]

You need to define your terms. If by "evolution" you're referring to getting to people from prehistoric goo then it isn't evolution at all. It's a mutation which comes from a loss in genetic information. Such mutations cannot, by definition, be the kind of evolution that would lead to mankind because that would require massive massive amounts of gains in genetic information, not losses.

Ok, you appear to be referring to your article, which is an Irreducible Complexity rehash on mutation and biochemical structures. But my comment is related to changes in the genetic characteristics of dogs through the selective breeding of wolves.

I don't know what you mean by "prehistoric goo." Perhaps you can define that term and how it relates to Evolution. Evolution doesn't state anything at all about "prehistoric goo."

Biochemical evolution is still a young science, with research being done that advocates the findings of complex structures in varying degrees in various organisms. Your article states that mutations must account for modern complex biochemical structures that have a specific function, but it doesn't take into account that these structures can exist in other organisms with varying degrees of complexity.

There is a set of experiments with E. coli bacteria by a Dr. Richard Lenski in which he cloned a strain and put it in twelve separate flasks and allowed the strains to evolve independently in the same conditions(I believe he introduced citric acid as a food source in with the glucose on which E. coli normally survive). The bacteria had to develop new biochemical pathways to assimilate this new source of food. They did so. The team recorded many new mutations, some beneficial, some not, that allowed the bacteria to survive and thrive on citric acid. There are a lot of details to the experiment that I'm not relating as it is an extremely intricate and detailed experiment lasting over 20 years. Feel free to look it up.

What the experiment means to your article is that there is no barrier to mutation creating new biochemical pathways to deal with a particular condition confronting the genome. And this can happen independent of a designer. Natural selection and mutation worked together to introduce structures within an organism that deal with a chemical not formally processed at all by the organism. That alone shreds the credibility of your article which states that mutation cannot possibly account for the development of such pathways.

Perhaps, in the future, cite an article from a biochemist and not a veterinarian. If I was a biochemist and more qualified to comment, I'm sure I could come up with more mistakes made when writing this article that is clearly outside of her area of expertise. She definitely doesn't appear to understand the mechanics of mutation.

 

[Dr.]

...an argument for creationism – and I’m not sure that’s what you meant.

My mistake. I guess that is what you meant.

 

[random_havoc]

1. Yeah, I missed him. Incidentally, it is Aristarchus of Samos who first discovered the idea of heliocentricity, not Copernicus.
That's a nice, if irrelevant tidbit. He is still widely regarded in the scientific field as the father of modern astronomy is he not? Either way this point has gone significantly off the track of my original main point.

2. Dr. Millam's paper, aside from being a propaganda piece, does little to advance the idea that the Bible directly supports free inquiry. After all, it took how many years for the church to free up their reins enough to allow for science to flourish? If these ideas were so apparent, why is a 21st century apologist expounding on them occurring in the 17th century? Why weren't these ideas discovered when the Christian religion had full power during the Early Middle Ages? Or even during the early days of the Church after the fall of the Roman Empire?
You're making ridiculous assertions here. Why not ask: "Why weren't they driving cars in 250BC? Why didn't the Greeks invent the bicycle?
My point was never that Christianity supercharges science/scientists (though that seems like the straw man you're trying to set up), but rather that the historical evidence points toward faith not being a hindrance which is contrary to the claims of many atheists today.

3. Unfortunately, during the Dark Ages, or Early Middle Ages if you prefer, very little to any scientific inquiry was advance or supported. Education was almost solely for the clergy or the wealthy. And those who were not Christian or did not adhere to the established dogma were considered heretic and imprisoned or put to death.
Again your arguments don't logically connect with what you're implying here. Yes, Christianity was used for terrible things. I don't think anyone here denies that. But as others here have already argued very well just because something is able to be abused to terrible ends doesn't mean the thing itself is terrible (just as Hitlers use of the idea of survival of the fittest to support genocide doesn't mean that the theory of Evolution is itself an evil thing).

4. The early scientists you mentioned made scientific discoveries completely separate from their religious pursuits. Galileo was imprisoned by the Roman Inquisition and ordered to recant his heretic notions of a heliocentric solar system under threat of torture. Newton studied religious ideas that would have labeled him as a heretic as well had the Anglican Christian authorities known of his studies, none of which bore any productive results. His scientific studies were considered an afterthought by the man himself. The latter scientists who lived during the 17th and 18th century were allowed to flourish due to the Church losing its power and influence over free inquiry. If Christianity had such influence over the advancement of science, then why didn't it advance during those times when its power was at its fullest. Something Dr. Millam doesn't explain because he is Christian, and these facts are troubling to his overall agenda.
You should read what people post. I already pointed out before that the idea that Galileo was charged with heresy by the church is A MYTH which has been ignorantly used to make arguments just like you're trying to make. Go back and look for my old post as I'm not going to bother proving that again. Just like the idea that all of America's forefathers gathered together in the same room to sign the declaration of independence (they couldn't all gather together because war had already begun so it was sent around for each to sign) it is a myth that's become so widely spread that it's even been taught in classrooms.
As for why science progressed more over a thousand years later than earlier, I think there are many many factors involved.


There were many discoveries made earlier than that time, but they were not allowed to advance because of the dogma forced on the populace by the Church.
You need to give examples to support such a broad statement. Not to mention that once again this goes back to which others here have already well argued, that faith is not bad just because it has been used toward bad ends.

Think about this. The Romans and Greeks left behind the pinnacle of scientific thought and technology of the time, after the fall of the Roman Empire. Greek mathematics, logic, science and medicine, and Roman aqueducts, roads and their own improvements in science, all left in the dust and ruin when the Christians came into power. The article mentioned the discoveries of other cultures, but those early Christian "scientists" didn't discover them or improve upon their findings due to Christianity's supposedly unyielding nature of free thought and inquirythat certainly advanced the idea of modern scientific thought. Did it?
It must be a lot easier setting up strawman arguments to knock down rather than arguing what I'm actually saying. I am not saying Christianity = automatic and superspeed improvements in science. I am saying faith does not equal hindrance to the scientific mind (as I've also point out, there are many Christian scientists still today).
I am also saying that virtually every major scientific field was founded by a man of faith, which, again,does NOT mean that I'm saying anything remotely like Christianity = superspeed science.

If science owes so much to Christianity, then we should be far more advanced than our current level of technology since Christianity had so much influence for so long, and they had the shoulders of giants to stand upon.
Once again you're making huge assumptions about the progression of science and you're misrepresenting my argument.


It's going to take more than apologetic diatribe to rationalize that. This is nothing more than modern apologists revising history to the credit of their religion. It's easy to look upon history and put your own spin on it to advance an idea you desire. But the facts and lack of any real fruits from Christianity's highest moments of influence take the wind out of the sails of this one.
As I already pointed out with your Galileo reference you might want to shy away from accusations regarding the revising of history. The history shows that men of faith founded those scientific fields (whether you want to excuse that away or not). As for your reference to Christianity's highest moments of influence that's a topic vastly more complicated topic you've addressed. Suffice it for now to say that BIBLICAL Christianity's primary concern is and always been spiritual.

My comments added in bold above. Sorry it took so long to respond but as I previously mentioned I generally don't take part in such discussions online, and I'm busy with work.

 

[redhawk23]

You need to define your terms. If by "evolution" you're referring to getting to people from prehistoric goo then it isn't evolution at all. It's a mutation which comes from a loss in genetic information. Such mutations cannot, by definition, be the kind of evolution that would lead to mankind because that would require massive massive amounts of gains in genetic information, not losses.

Mutation is necessarily just a change in genetic make up, not a loss or gain. Where are you getting this idea of loss? I mean on a very basic level, bacteria can actually absorb new genetic data and exchange it despite reproducing asexually. They produce rings of nucleic acids which they can expel and absorb. These acids can recombine into new sequences, new genes.

Not to mention that cells do not always copy correctly, in mitosis, one cell may be shorted some information, loss of genetic information as you say, but then the other cell has extra bits of DNA, unmatched pairs of acids that can recombine, and do recombine fairly often. Most mutations don't do anything, much of our dna is apparently filler. Many mutations are harmful and are not passed on. Then there are the few mutations that help, that give an edge. The extra bit of code that makes a bacterium resistant to a medicine, That little bit of code that was copied and exchanged with other cells, suddenly makes a segment of the population with an advantage. And when all the other cells without that advantage get killed off, the few left behind have all the resources to themselves and reproduce rapidly. Now the whole population has the adaptation. And that's just from the random floating bits of genetic information that is randomly exchanged (you can actually watch this happen under a microscope).

With organisms that reproduce sexually, genetic information is continually recombined and exchanged. You are right in that with each succeeding generation there is a concentration and loss of total genetic information. Often times this is hurtful to the species, and unsurprisingly, the vast majority of species ever to exist are extinct. And yet when there are multiple population of species, temporarily separated, that concentrate separately, when they are thrust back together it creates new combinations that previously likely would never have happened. Not to mention that there is still mutation going on in all of this. Blond hair is a mutation. As far as I know, blond haired people are not missing any genes, they simply have a different one.



Also the dog argument, is moot, that's guided breeding not natural selection. It'd actually be more arguable "proof" for "intelligent design" as they call it.

 

[WildcatNC]

I don't think many creationists read these books anyway.

Yeah, seriously.

In my experience I don't think they read many books at all honestly.


Many think one book is all you need to read.

 

[random_havoc]

Ok, you appear to be referring to your article, which is an Irreducible Complexity rehash on mutation and biochemical structures. But my comment is related to changes in the genetic characteristics of dogs through the selective breeding of wolves.

I don't know what you mean by "prehistoric goo." Perhaps you can define that term and how it relates to Evolution. Evolution doesn't state anything at all about "prehistoric goo."

Biochemical evolution is still a young science, with research being done that advocates the findings of complex structures in varying degrees in various organisms. Your article states that mutations must account for modern complex biochemical structures that have a specific function, but it doesn't take into account that these structures can exist in other organisms with varying degrees of complexity.

There is a set of experiments with E. coli bacteria by a Dr. Richard Lenski in which he cloned a strain and put it in twelve separate flasks and allowed the strains to evolve independently in the same conditions(I believe he introduced citric acid as a food source in with the glucose on which E. coli normally survive). The bacteria had to develop new biochemical pathways to assimilate this new source of food. They did so. The team recorded many new mutations, some beneficial, some not, that allowed the bacteria to survive and thrive on citric acid. There are a lot of details to the experiment that I'm not relating as it is an extremely intricate and detailed experiment lasting over 20 years. Feel free to look it up.

What the experiment means to your article is that there is no barrier to mutation creating new biochemical pathways to deal with a particular condition confronting the genome. And this can happen independent of a designer. Natural selection and mutation worked together to introduce structures within an organism that deal with a chemical not formally processed at all by the organism. That alone shreds the credibility of your article which states that mutation cannot possibly account for the development of such pathways.

Perhaps, in the future, cite an article from a biochemist and not a veterinarian. If I was a biochemist and more qualified to comment, I'm sure I could come up with more mistakes made when writing this article that is clearly outside of her area of expertise. She definitely doesn't appear to understand the mechanics of mutation.

A refutation of the general interpretation of the experiment you referenced:
http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli

Contrary to the wide claim, that experiment does not give evidence of new genetic information arising from mutation.


As to the last article I posted and its author, I apologize, if I'd looked more into it I would have chosen one with an author with more particular educational focus on that topic. Nonetheless the same view is held by a variety of creationist scientists specializing in that field. A couple that come to mind are Dr Duane Gish (biochemist) and Dr Jonathan Sarfati (physical chemist and all around genius). There are, of course, more, but of course number of people holding an opinion don't prove an opinion. I'm just stating that people with the proper education and experience do hold that opinion.

 

[random_havoc]

In my experience I don't think they read many books at all honestly.


Many think one book is all you need to read.

The same could be said for the majority laymen supporters of many views. I have discussed the topic with many laymen supporters of evolution whose arguments I'm sure would be embarrassing to even you on these boards let alone those with doctorates, that doesn't actually mean anything though regarding which side of the argument is correct.

 

[Bill]

You're making ridiculous assertions here. Why not ask: "Why weren't they driving cars in 250BC? Why didn't the Greeks invent the bicycle?
My point was never that Christianity supercharges science/scientists (though that seems like the straw man you're trying to set up), but rather that the historical evidence points toward faith not being a hindrance which is contrary to the claims of many atheists today.

No, but you are arguing that Christianity is a friendly environment for science to flourish. What I am saying is that the Scientific accomplishments of these men were independent of their pursuits within religion and in some cases, their pursuits in religion were fruitless.

Again your arguments don't logically connect with what you're implying here. Yes, Christianity was used for terrible things. I don't think anyone here denies that. But as others here have already argued very well just because something is able to be abused to terrible ends doesn't mean the thing itself is terrible (just as Hitlers use of the idea of survival of the fittest to support genocide doesn't mean that the theory of Evolution is itself an evil thing).

And again, you're improperly regurgitating my argument. I'm not arguing about the atrocities of Christianity. I am stating that if Christianity was so friendly to the free inquiry of science, then why did it take until the 17th century for scientific discoveries to flourish?

You should read what people post. I already pointed out before that the idea that Galileo was charged with heresy by the church is A MYTH which has been ignorantly used to make arguments just like you're trying to make. Go back and look for my old post as I'm not going to bother proving that again. Just like the idea that all of America's forefathers gathered together in the same room to sign the declaration of independence (they couldn't all gather together because war had already begun so it was sent around for each to sign) it is a myth that's become so widely spread that it's even been taught in classrooms.
As for why science progressed more over a thousand years later than earlier, I think there are many many factors involved.

Galileo's problems with the Church are a myth? New one on me. Do you have a cite for that?

What are those factors exactly? Those factors would go a long way to supporting a contention that Christianity supports scientific inquiry.

It must be a lot easier setting up strawman arguments to knock down rather than arguing what I'm actually saying. I am not saying Christianity = automatic and superspeed improvements in science. I am saying faith does not equal hindrance to the scientific mind (as I've also point out, there are many Christian scientists still today).
I am also saying that virtually every major scientific field was founded by a man of faith, which, again,does NOT mean that I'm saying anything remotely like Christianity = superspeed science.

Again, you are erroneously restating my argument. I am not saying that either. What I'm saying is that for many years faith DID hinder freethought, and those discoveries were made when the power of Christianity was at a low after years of having a stranglehold on almost all aspects of society. Even within the timeframe you have, all educated men were Christian, they had to be.

You cite an article that supports the contention that Christianity supports the framework of the scientific method, but you don't get that support within the confines of history until over a thousand years after its birth.

There are Christian Scientists today. And, depending on which sect they choose to follow, their views on the discoveries of science vary as great as those of secular scientists. Those that decide to follow the route of Creationism do not publish in journals views that reflect that, and those that try fail on the lack of merits that are contained in their papers. Those that do publish in science journals publish findings unrelated to their religious beliefs or do not cover fields that conflict with their religious beliefs. I would say with certainty conflicts with science. How much so depends upon how well the individual is able to rationalize what the evidence states with what they read in the Bible.

Once again you're making huge assumptions about the progression of science and you're misrepresenting my argument.

No, I'm not misinterpreting your argument, I'm making an extrapolation from it which is problematic for you given that it doesn't fit within the confines what you're attempting to state.

As I already pointed out with your Galileo reference you might want to shy away from accusations regarding the revising of history. The history shows that men of faith founded those scientific fields (whether you want to excuse that away or not). As for your reference to Christianity's highest moments of influence that's a topic vastly more complicated topic you've addressed. Suffice it for now to say that BIBLICAL Christianity's primary concern is and always been spiritual.

Other than an offhand statement dismissing the reference to Galileo, you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. That he was imprisoned and tortured is a myth. But he was tried and convicted of heresy, and he stayed out of prison(I misspoke about actually going to prison, but house arrest is prison at home) by recanting his ideas of heliocentrism. He was remanded to house arrest for the rest of his life. The Church was certainly unfriendly to his views on Science, and his views were contrary to Scripture according to the Church. I would say that it was in spite of religion, not because of it, that those findings were made. I think that the inherent curiosity and intellect of those men provided the framework for their findings, not what they read in the Bible. I think they would have made those discoveries without the need of a background in Christianity. They happened to have during a time when everyone educated had it.

If you have a cite that says otherwise, provide it. I hope it's better than the last one. Don't cite from an Art Historian just because they might have a Dr. in front of their name, try to find a source related to the field this time.