Given his high profile in the UK on Revelation TV recently and his novel ideas on genetics, global warming and plate tectonics I thought I would check out his qualifications and record of scientific research in these areas. He is usually addressed on his TV appearances as "Dr Grady" and there is great deference to his qualifications: the implication being that he knows better than the viewers. In fact, although he has a general science education it appears to be in agricultural related subjects and his Doctorate is in theology, not science, and is not from a recognised university of any standing.
Summary of this article
Dr Grady McMurtry's qualifications appear to consist of an undergraduate degree in agriculture (majoring in forestry) and a masters degree in environmental science.
His doctorate is in theology and from a non accredited private college that does not make doctoral theses available for public scrutiny. He does not seem to be involved in any academic research work. His family background suggests that he is the son of Grady Louis McMurtry who was head of the secret society Ordo Templi Orientis founded by Aleister Crowley.
To add balance to this article I have included direct links to videos of interviews and discussions with Dr McMurtry so that readers can make up their own minds. In January 2009 I also added a section entitled "in his defence" which includes some points in his defence which were emailed to me by a reader.
Academic Background
Stated qualifications from his web site
http://www.creationworldview.org/aboutus.asp
BS, University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture
MS, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science
DD, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
Regent of the School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
Adjunct Professor, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
Florida Christian College, Guest Lecturer
My research so far
BS, University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture
This is an undergraduate degree in agriculture, not science.
McMurtry is not listed on their web site as a notable graduate although eleven astronauts and many scientists are!
MS, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science
SUNY is an umbrella for various institutions in New York state mainly providing vocational qualifications. The College of Environmental Science based in Syracuse concentrates on forestry and related areas. MS is a post graduate degree (masters degree). Its not clear what subject his MS is in, but it other sources listed below suggest forestry. Current MS degrees from this school are taught degrees and not research based. It is unclear if any research was involved in his MS.
DD, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
DD is a Doctor of Divinity (i.e. theology) and is not related to any scientific discipline. Dr McMurtry has stated in interviews that it is a doctorate in Christian apolagetics.
I cannot locate such a school of theology.
No link to it from his web site, but on http://www.lwcf.com/college/faculty.htm he is listed as having a degree from Christian Life School of Theology, so this may be the correct name.
This is listed as a private college at http://www.directoryofeducation.net/colleges_universities/USA/Georgia/Christian+Life+School+of+Theology/508/
Their web site www.clst.edu is not working and the domain name appears to no longer be registered.
Their web site was linked from the page footers on http://www.lwcf.com/college/info.htm which is a non accredited bible college so there may be some connection between them.
According to http://www.ohwy.com/ga/h/hx425302.htm
"Christian Life School Of Theology is a non-profit private institution, located in Columbus, Muscogee County, GA. Total enrollment is approximately 50. The program lasts for less than one year. Popular programs include Religion/Religious Studies."
His scientific research
I have been unable to find any research papers authored or co-authored by Grady S McMurtry in any peer reviewed journal. This does not mean that there aren't any. I just can't find them, but if there were a lot of articles I think I would have. He appears to not be currently involved in any academic research or investigation.
His title of Adjunct Professor
This comes from the same college where he got his DD: "Total enrollment is approximately 50".
In his defence (this section added 27/01/2008)
I have been emailed by someone who says:
"Dr Mcmurtry actually graduated first in his class at University and is a member of Mensa. DD is a proper doctorate awarded to him."
This all appears to be correct and I am happy to add it to this article for balance, while at the same time pointing out that being generally clever does not make you an expert on geology or evolutionary biology. His doctorate is an honorary one and its in theology, not in a scientific subject. I am not denigrating him as a person, just asking logical questions about his real scientific expertise.
His beliefs
A summary of his claims about Evolution:
http://www.cft.org.za/articles/evolution_wrong_mcmurtry.htm
A video summarising some of his novel ideas about plate tectonics and other evolution related issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QY2RLeye9o
http://christianobserver.org/the-difference-between-christian-conservation-and-environmental-terrorism/
Finances
Public records of his organisations finances can be found here:
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/01/creationist-finances-creation-worldview.html
His donation to the 2008 Republican presidential campaign:
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Mcmurtry&fname=Grady&search=Search
Links to other articles about Dr Grady McMurtry
http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2007/04/honorary-doctor-of-nothing-grady-s.html
http://fundiewatch.blogspot.com/2007/04/teaching-bad-science-would-help-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxRXfduYt1Y
Videos of some of his TV appearances
Dr McMurtry tells the story of his early life and conversion:
http://blip.tv/file/2775387
Revelation TV "World in Focus":
Part 1 - http://blip.tv/file/673356
Part 2 - http://talkgod.blip.tv/file/686989/ (includes a phone in)
Revelation TV Programme "Creation, Science and the Bible" filmed in Israel:
Part 1 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RwWZSlHLYFY
Part 2 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CuCzs8RJjMA
Part 3 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FkAQMK3nB1Y
Part 4 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cvf8la48fxM
Part 5 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8X8cTmHANhg
Finances
Public records of his organisations finances can be found here:
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/01/creationist-finances-creation-worldview.html
His donation to the 2008 Republican presidential campaign:
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Mcmurtry&fname=Grady&search=Search
Links to other articles about Dr Grady McMurtry
http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2007/04/honorary-doctor-of-nothing-grady-s.html
http://fundiewatch.blogspot.com/2007/04/teaching-bad-science-would-help-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxRXfduYt1Y
Videos of some of his TV appearances
Dr McMurtry tells the story of his early life and conversion:
http://blip.tv/file/2775387
Revelation TV "World in Focus":
Part 1 - http://blip.tv/file/673356
Part 2 - http://talkgod.blip.tv/file/686989/ (includes a phone in)
Revelation TV Programme "Creation, Science and the Bible" filmed in Israel:
Part 1 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RwWZSlHLYFY
Part 2 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CuCzs8RJjMA
Part 3 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FkAQMK3nB1Y
Part 4 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cvf8la48fxM
Part 5 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8X8cTmHANhg
Speaking on "Creation Evangelism" at Harvest Temple Church, Georgia, August 2009 (the talk starts about 45 minutes in):
His family background?
His name got me wondering if he was related to Grady Louis McMurtry whom I had heard of as one of the leaders of the Thelema religion founded by Aleister Crowley.
According to his often repeated testimony, Dr Grady S McMurtry was born In San Francisco and raised on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley where his father was a student and then a lecturer. He became a Christian at the age of 27 and 18 months later became a committed creationist.
The oddest similarity is that Grady Louis McMurtry had a son born in San Francisco in 1946 (November 13th) which would make him 62 if he was still alive. This information is given in a letter that McMurtry sent to Crowley asking Crowley to draw up a horoscope for his new son (a task he declined).
The son was named Grady Shannon McMurtry (Grady S McMurtry - another coincidence?), and moved with his parents to the University of California, Berkeley where his father had funding under the GI Bill to study for a political science degree. By 1948 he had completed his bachelors and masters degrees, as was common under post war accelerated academic programmes. (source: http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/rf/rf5.htm ).
After serving in the Korean war Grady Louis McMurtry returned to Berkeley where he was graduate student and teaching assistant in the Political Science Department. He was there until 1956, when his son would have been nine years old.
By 1959 he had moved to Sacramento to work as a management analyst for the State Department of Labor.
In 1962 he became disillusioned with the leadership of the OTO (the Thelema order he belonged to) and went to work at the department of Treasury in Washington DC. He also taught night classes in politcal science at George Washington University.
Betwen 1969 and 1974 he was back in California running his own version of the OTO from the house he shared with his wife until they separated in 1974. He died in 1985.
Grady Louis McMurtry also published many volumes of poetry, science fiction and esoteric writing.
For more information about him see this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grady_McMurtry
The name Grady S and the Berkeley connection seem too much to be a coincidence. How many Grady McMurtrys could there have been on the campus at the same time? But if he is the son of Grady L why hide it? It would be an even bigger testimony of conversion. It may be that his mainstream supporters would be put off by the connection to Crowley (whom they would view as a Satanist, although the truth is much more complex).
Here are photographs of Grady L and Grady S at similar ages. They do look quite similar apart from the beard:
In conclusion, this is an intriguing side issue and hopefully someone can clarify the story and solve the mystery. It may just be a coincidence after all.
Please leave a comment if you know any more.
Update 28 Mar 2009
The mystery is apparently solved. According to this page Dr Grady S McMurtry IS the son of Grady Louis McMurtry, but was disowned by his father. This article also seems to confirm that Grady S studied for an MS (masters degree) in Forestry at Syracuse university:
This fact has long been known but not openly publicized. ... In truth; in Volume I of Grady Louis McMurtry’s biography ‘IN THE NAME OF THE BEAST’ I mentioned how Shannon was born on November 13th 1946 and in Volume II, I point out that “Shannon began attending the University of Tennessee at Knoxville” and later he attended “Syracuse University as a graduate student majoring in forestry.” ...... So, is the evangelist Grady Shannon McMurtry really Grady Louis McMurtry’s son? We don’t like to admit it but yes, he is ... in fact, on Shannon’s own website [http://www.creationworldview.org/aboutus.asp] he admits to getting his B S at the University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture and that he later attended State University of New York at Syracuse to get his M.S.. ... as did Grady's son. Coincidence? How many Grady Shannon McMurtrys could have been attending these two school at the same time and studying the same thing? So, if people wondered why Grady Louis McMurtry disowned his son I guess it could be said that father and son couldn’t be farthest apart!
This makes it even more of a mystery as to why he does not mention this. I wonder if being brought up in that sort of an environment makes it easier to reconcile belief in the wildly supernatural assertions of creationism with a firm belief in scientific principles?
Update 27th Sept 2009
I found an interesting account in another blog of an encounter with Dr McMurtry at a church in the USA. Click here to read it.
Disclaimer
All of this information is in the public domain.
If you have more detailed information or wish to correct any of it please leave a comment and I will approve it for immediate publication on this page (the only exception being comments which include profanity, which it is my policy never to approve).
Disclaimer
All of this information is in the public domain.
If you have more detailed information or wish to correct any of it please leave a comment and I will approve it for immediate publication on this page (the only exception being comments which include profanity, which it is my policy never to approve).
Posts
45 comments:
Here is a video summary of some of Dr McMurtry's beliefs about creation and evolution. At 6:04 he says he was raised in the palaeontology labs at Berkley, however his father lectured undergraduates in political science, not a true scientific discipline. I feel he skates over this issue to give the impression that he was brought up in a scientific family. In fact his father had some very odd religious beliefs and was a friend of Jack Parsons, who although being a rocket scientist was very interested in occult magick, as was McMurtry senior.
McMurtry was therefore brought up in a household where believing weird things was not considered incompatible with science even if the weird things themselves contradicted accepted science.
I think this upbringing is significant, as it may allow him to say with such authority that certain things are true based on his beliefs when he knows that they contradict generally accepted science.
Given your logic, then anything Darwin said doesn't count either. His only real qualification was in Theology. How typical that you try to character assassinate and therefore avoid addressing any of the points he raises in his seminars (this assumes you have actually listened to any of his talks)
I have noticed that athiests cannot directly address any of the scientific objections that creationists raise. Why is this the case?
You are making a basic, but common error. Evolutionists are not all atheists. In fact most professing Christians believe in Evolution - a fact that some fundamentalists find very uncomfortable. Therefore you should be asking if evolutionists have ever been able to come up with answers to the type of issues that Dr Grady McMurtry raises.
I am glad to say that Evolutionists have answered all of creationisms claims over the years. Starting with Charles Darwin himself who spent a large part of On the origin of Species dealing rhetorically with objections to the theory he was proposing.
The reason why creationists get tied up in knots is that they often don't understand the process of natural selection which is at the heart of evolution and is not random chance. It is a very simple mechanism and in its own way quite miraculous.
As for Dr McMurtry, it is not me who is drawing attention to his qualifications, but himself. He makes great play of mentioning his degrees at every opportunity as if they give him greater authority to speak on the issue. Clearly they do not (which is what you just said but directed the comment to Darwin instead).
Of course, Darwin did not have a degree in evolutionary biology because he hadn't discovered evolution yet. A point of logic which may escape some people.
And as for being a member of Mensa; well it wouldn't take me long to find an evolutionary biologist who was also a member, so that doesn't make what he says any more or less correct than anyone else.
Why do you trust Dr McMurtry's theories over those that have been worked out by many scientists over many years? Presumably you are quite happy to take medicine which has also been developed by scientists over many years, without feeling that you need to question its effectiveness.
I think the answer is that just as Galileo showed that the sun does not revolve round the earth, evolution challenges Christians to accept that they are not the centre of the universe. A rather humbling notion, especially for the self exalting kind of Christians who tend to be very pro creationism.
You need to get a life.
I am not sure what you mean. I have a very busy and varied life, between my work, family life and musical interests.
http://truthisbetterthanlies.blogspot.com/
If someone like Grady McMurtry is standing up in a public place claiming to be an expert, and knowing better than the established scientific community, then his qualifications and expertise are a legitimate issue for debate.
If you read my article you will see that the facts presented appear to be correct and nobody has produced any information that contradicts it.
If they do then I will happily add it to the article. The issue is not whether he is right or wrong, but whether his apparent scientific expertise is credible or relevant to the subjects he is making considerable claims about.
I think his family background is relevant because if someone is brought up in an environment where its possible to reconcile regular science with wildly contradictory religious beliefs then that may have a bearing on how their critical faculties develop.
I read your article about me, but I am not sure how being a trumpet player makes me unqualified to comment or give an opinion on these issues. I have no scientific qualifications at all, but I don't claim to and I don't claim to be an expert on evolutionary biology or climate change either.
The trumpet player highlight was just a bit of cheeky fun.
So Gordon, by your principle, unless a person has relevant qualifications for a particular field of study they have no right whatsoever to comment, criticise, study, teach or become an expert in that field?
That's astonishing coming from you who seems to have become an expert in personal attacks! Self taught obviously.
As for family backgrounds, that is just such a week argument.
You, being an atheist will undoubtedly have no balance in your appraisal whatsoever if someone has a 'religious' background.
"I think his family background is relevant because if someone is brought up in an environment where its possible to reconcile regular science with wildly contradictory religious beliefs then that may have a bearing on how their critical faculties develop."What a classic bit of snobbery!
Your own family background must have been wonderfully neutral and perfectly balanced.
"So Gordon, by your principle, unless a person has relevant qualifications for a particular field of study they have no right whatsoever to comment, criticise, study, teach or become an expert in that field?"They can certainly comment or criticise but they can't try and give their opinions added weight by giving the appearance of academic qualifications in the subject that they do not have.
Its not a personal attack. Dr McMurtry is publicly putting forward a position I don't agree with so I am criticising it, just as someone else might criticise an MP's expenses, or someone else might criticise Richard Dawkins. It is fair debate.
It seems to me that most Christians do not actually believe in freedom of speech and it worries me greatly what sort of world we would live in if they were running it.
I have explained why I think his upbringing is relevant, but to give an example, his father was a friend of Jack Parsons, who while being a great scientist believed all sorts of weird religious stuff which was contrary to known science. This type of upbringing may influence someone who is otherwise intelligent not to experience any cognitive dissonance (intellectual uneasiness) between the supernatural and evidential science.
Anyway the creationist thing is a non issue really, except where it has the potential to affect science education. The fact is that there are very few creationists. Most Christians do believe in evolution and you do not need to believe in creationism to be a Christian. Even hardened creationists tend to keep it to Sundays and are happy to benefit from science that is derived from evolutionary research on other days of the week.
"It seems to me that most Christians do not actually believe in freedom of speech and it worries me greatly what sort of world we would live in if they were running it."Ever heard of the Pot calling the Kettle black?
With this statement you then go on as if you're the 'thought police'.
"they can't try and give their opinions added weight by giving the appearance of academic qualifications in the subject that they do not have."I think you'll find he was merely pointing out, as many people do; they are at least 'academics' and are therefore not stupid. It's just weight.
Should he have kept quiet about his academic achievements?
"who while being a great scientist believed all sorts of weird religious stuff which was contrary to known science. "Highbrow and snobbish! Anything that breaks conventions is rejected therefore. It's a pity your logic was not applied to Darwin.
Let's face it Gordon,you are just a hater of all things Christian aren't you? I mean to say it would be better if you were just honest about that instead of covering your hatred in a shroud of science.
"you do not need to believe in creationism to be a Christian.
Even hardened creationists tend to keep it to Sundays and are happy to benefit from science that is derived from evolutionary research on other days of the week."Actually to call God a liar is to reject Christ. Those Christians should take note. I'm into Jesus 24/7
I'd love to know what benefits can be derived from evolution.
Dear, dear. You really think you're a free thinker. When actually your thoughts are completely surrounded and immersed in a spurious branch of science which is driven solely by an atheist agenda in schools and universities. You know that's true.
Creationist science is evidential also by the way.
Creationists take note of the evidence and then see if it fit's the scenario of biblical creation, evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of the scenario of evolution and dare I say it, the big bang theory.
Well I don't agree with you, and the great thing is that I don't have to.
I do believe in free speech. I allowed you to respond to me here, unlike your blog which does not even allow comments!
"I do believe in free speech. I allowed you to respond to me here, unlike your blog which does not even allow comments!"Tsk tsk. Free speech advocate and judgemental. In one breath!
I never realised the settings on my blog were so until we started this conversation. I think I have rectified that.
I have had some colourful abuse from 'atheists' in the past and must have changed the setting.
Of course, you could have worked that one out rather than just judgmental!
I notice the comments here require approval. Thought police oversight! ;-)
"I notice the comments here require approval. Thought police oversight! ;-)"No its just to prevent spam or the occasional expletive ridden response which people sometimes try to post.
I see where you are coming from, I used to be a creationist, but I don't agree with you, and I don't have to. This is the basis of western democracy and what separates us from theocratic states like Iran or England under Cromwell.
You're only real gripe with Dr McMurtry is his stance and belief on origins of species! The other stuff is just an attempt to side swipe him in the hope that you can damage his credibility.
Do you examine so closely those 'experts' who agree with your branch of science and atheism?
I would wager you don't.
On another note,
Have you ever considered what a catastrophic blunder you have made in jumping from Creationist to Evolutionists when evolution is highly improbable and screamingly impossible?
Come back, you know it makes sense.
Well He doesn't really have much credibility as a scientist. He is more of a theologian.
The thing about evolution is that we keep finding evidence that fits what we would expect to find if evolution was correct. Its overwhelming really, and people like McMurtry, Ken Ham and John McKay rely on misrepresenting evolution as "random chance" or overstating their own expertise to prevent anyone feeling like they can answer back.
I am not an expert on evolutionary biology. I am also not an expert on human medicine, but I am quite happy to accept the opinion of a medical doctor rather than a quack. The same goes for quack scientists making statements about evolution. I will tend to take their opinions with a pinch of salt.
Worse still, they give the impression that if you are not a creationist you can't be a true Christian, which is clearly not the case. I do not believe in God and I believe in evolution, but I know lots of people who so believe in God who also believe in evolution.
I just wanted to say that this is the first unbiased article I have been able to find about Dr. McMurtry on the web. Everything else has been from an entirely biased source. So, props to you for trying to be as unbiased as possible, whether you agree with the guy or not.
It would truly be an unbiased article if the writer was not an atheist. Atheists always have one agenda when writing or commenting about Christians - to defame them in anyway they can.
So, this is a lot of things; but unbiased? Never.
It would truly be an unbiased article if the writer was not an atheist. Atheists always have one agenda when writing or commenting about Christians - to defame them in anyway they can.
So, this is a lot of things; but unbiased? Never.I find that quite insulting considering that many of my friends and family are Christians.
Christianity and creationism are not synonymous. If it was proved that evolution was not true it would not automatically follow that God did it.
You also seem to have odd ideas about atheism. I don;t believe in God. I don't hate Christians or hate the Church, but I do believe in freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Do you, or would you rather this article was deleted?
"I find that quite insulting considering that many of my friends and family are Christians."
Let's not be silly about this Gordon. We're both big boy's. Getting offended by truth is painful but I'm sure you'll be okay soon.
Try and look beneath the surface. That is the surface and veneer that we present to the world. At least admit that in this case and with this guy, you have an agenda that is firmly based and rooted in your 'world view' and atheism!
If you visit the atheist central (Richard Dawkin's forum) you will clearly see that most atheists do have a single reson d'etre. (pardon the bad French) God haters.
Gordon, dont say you're not a God hater because the evidence is there. Jesus said, "you are either for me or against me!" There is no middle ground.
"Christianity and creationism are not synonymous. If it was proved that evolution was not true it would not automatically follow that God did it."
What would follow Gordon? Creationism is as old as Adam and has never changed. If you really actually read some Creation science journals instead of making sweeping comments based on guess's and second hand information, maybe you would actually know why it is that so many people believe as I do.
Also, Christians who believe in evolution are just plain ignorant. Wishy washy lukewarm jokers who need to read the Bible rather than watch the Discovery channel.
Not everyone who goes to church on a Sunday or even who takes to the pulpit are 'Christians.'
Enough said really!
I want to write to you by email, is it posible?
Hello
If you wish to email me you will find my contact details here:
http://www.hudson.nu/contact.html
I am the author of this article. I am not Dr Grady McMurtry!
If you want to contact him you will need to go to his web site www.creationworldview.org
Excellent post. You managed to a very sharp criticism without polemnics. You make a very compelling argument here that Dr. McMurtry's background would proclude expertise in the sciences necessary to sustain serious argument. And, of course, there's little doubt as to his parentage.
Thanks for linking me to this page.
hey guys. I don't wish to go to deep in today. As i am on my phone and can not write too intensely. I'd like to say though...
The way the world is of course there is some atheists that hate christians and vice versa. Remember though evolution theory is just a theory and such is a choice of belief. Science although fundamentally claims to be based on observations often in the past as far back as i have read into, theory after theory based on observations which has led down wrong paths before of course not all theories.
My message is one of humility. Knowledge is only power to one who is wise to use it.
The bible teaches us that the scholars of this world who proclaim to be wise he shall made foolish.
I think this is very interesting topic. I don't believe it's fair to judge or verify someones information based on there position or qualification. People often maybe more often than not abuse a position of power. Scientists and priests alike. So to assume someones information is more credible because of such things seem unwise to me. To accept anything without a full understanding of what your signing up to. If you do choose to do so i think it's important to bare in mind that you are subject ( in my opinion ) to the same criticisms as religious believers are subject too.
My opinion anyway.
This is great. I just moved from the Detroit area and this man is a regular speaker on a local Christian talk radio show. He is always referred to as an "astrophysicist" and "former Evolution Scientist turned Creation Scientist." This article needs to be read before each introduction of this man.
Yes! Grady Louis McMurtry, Hymenaeus Alpha 777 of the OTO is this guy's father. This can be confirmed somewhere here: http://www.cornelius93.com/ContentsPage.html
If you scroll down about a couple of pages you'll see many articles by and about Grady (Sr.)This is the website of Jerry Cornelius, Achad Osher 583 Grady's spiritual heir. He discussed Grady's son in a post on his blog some time ago.
This is a bizarre page. It reminds me of politicans making personal attacks rather than tackling issues head on. I was hoping to find a discussion of the content of Dr McMurtry's lectures and writings. For example, the distance of the Moon from Earth, year on year; volcanoes; magnetic fields; all of which provide evidence that the Earth is new (1000s of years old) that is so compelling that it demands an answer from those who say it is billions of years old, a view which appears to be pure theory.
It is vitally important that Christians deliver good science (for example Sir John Houghton), for the quest for truth means that faith in God and science go hand in hand. I would love to see an intelligent discussion.
By the way, you don't need to stoop to subterfuge to delve into Dr McMurtry's past. Why not give him a call? If he wanted to hide who his father was, he would have changed his name. It's a pretty unusual one after all.
Mike Buckland, MA Modern Languages (Cambridge University) and a lover of Christ and science.
The purpose of this article is to examine his qualifications and the reason for doing so is because he makes considerable capital of his qualifications.
This article has no stated intention to deal with any of those issues you have listed. There are many web sites out there devoted to doing such things.
I've actually debated McMurtry at a US college with my colleagues. He is nothing more than a fast-talking old-school YEC possessing no valid credentials in biology and a Bible-school doctorate from an institution that is harder to find than Jimmay Hoffa. As is typical of most of his kind, he is all fancy rhetoric with no substance. Old, tired, worn-out, long-debunked junk sums it up.
Good work, Gordon, on exposing this chap's background.
Gordon has the upper hand in this "debate". Alan has had to resort to red herrings and logical fallacies for his claims.
Thanks for this - I DO NOT HAVE THE knowledgwe scientific or otherwise to make any significant impact on this discussion, but what I have noticed is that so far we have not concentrated on WHAT Dr M is saying, and how credible it is. Qualifications should not be so important as the substance of his claims etc. I saw one where he had some photographic evidence that this chap HAECKEL (an early big name in Evolution in the 1800's) had fraudulently claimed that our human foetuses are identical to dog ones, and that he had faked it. Well, surely that is significant, and notable evidence. At school I was taught that making assumptions, in science or otherwise, is unwise, and this seems to me to be what Evolutionists from Darwin onwards have done quite consistently. Their evidence has been proved by Dr M to be flawed, especially in the Carbon14 area. Surely, someone out there knows the truth about this, apart from tearing Dr McMurtry apart? BTW, X.Dell, it just did not understand your post, or where you are coming from. Are you on Dr M's side, or Gordon's? To me, qualifications are irrelevant, if one has credible or reliable evidence. Facts, facts, facts.
This article does not address any of his claims, just his qualifications. Grady McMurtry makes various claims and has various opinions. Rather than collating incontrovertible evidence he tends to use rhetorical questions and then reinforce his opinions with his apparent qualifications and scientific background. Its quite misleading as he is not even a doctor of science, but he does nothing to dispel the conception that he might be when he gets interviewed.
There are plenty of places to debate creation vs evolution. This is not one of them.
A good Christian friend asked me to check out Dr Grady S McMurtry, and this blog looked interesting. As a Roman Catholic Priest, I guess I should declare a strong 'Thological Bias'. I also hold a 'Honorary Doctorate' from Proffessor Sher Singh Sher (Lion of Lions)who was my guest c. 1973/74 when he came to address the Lambeth Conference and also our UK Parliament. There may be a record of this at The Golden Temple. Professor Sher Singh Sher left me with the parting words "Seek and you shall find" (A pun, I suspect)...I adore mathematics and physics, and am an avid 'groupie' of both subjects. Dr Grady S McMurtry's theories are certainly on the edge of the bell curve...and may chime with a few enthusiastic followers, but are not quite my cup of tea. On the subject of 'Theological Time' (I am qualified to speak on the subject) there is a very interesting Vedic Chronology. Lord Brahma, who is Lord Mahavisnu's micro-expansion, Lord Garbokashayivisnu's empowered creator of this micro-cosmos, He lives for 101 years and one day, plus a very precice extra time. Lord Brahma's year is 360 days, (as we have 360 degrees in a circle) His days are of 12 hours duration, as are His nights. He creates during His days, and replenishes His Cosmos at night (Maintanance) Lord Brahma's 'second' is equivalent to a Lakh or 100,000 of our terrestrial years. 12 x 60 x 60 x 100,000 = 4.32 Billion years, about as long as our planet has existed. Now read the Vedic commentary on the extra allotted time just past the 101 years and a day, and obtain the value of "Pi" to 33 sinnificant figures. Neat! and a nice way to educate children with a 'memorable' version of the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle. Let's not go into the ancient 'calculus' Kalakalanayaam... thousnds of years old....blah!
Hello
'many professiing christians believe in evolution'...
REALLY? Where did you get this from? Probably just your view and you state it as fact? Just like evolutionists do.
Your belief system and presuppositions are reflected completely truthfully by what God himself says about you..
You're a sinner
You hate God
You dont want to believe in God
You are of the devil and not of God
God tells is the book of Romans, chapter 1, verse 18-20 through Paul.. "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"
Because of your sin nature you rebell against God. You are stubborn and selfish, and do not wish to repent of your sins as God the son, Jesus Christ tells you to do. Look at nature, look at the human body, look at the universe.
Its design and order all over the place.. God's glory is cleary seen.
Luke 17:26-27 says.."Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all"
Be warned... you can disbelieve, but God is speaking to you every day dude through creation. I pray you repent, and believe.
How can you make these sort of statements about me without ever having met me or knowing me?
You're a sinner - presumably so are you.
You hate God - how can I hate someone I don't believe exists?
You dont want to believe in God - I would dearly love to believe in God, but the problem is evidence.
You are of the devil and not of God - thats a cop out really, so anyone who disagrees with you on a point of doctrine is of the devil?
This idea that I somehow hate Christians is entirely bogus. I have lots of Christian friends and family members. I work full time for a Christian organisation and work closely with local ministers of evangelical denominations. I have good relations with these people (presumably you assume they must be of the devil as well if they "consort" with me).
Where does it say in the bible that salvation is in any way linked to believing in a young earth and creationism?
Answer: There is no link between the two and I covered this in this article:
http://www.ecalpemos.org/2009/04/can-you-be-christian-and-believe-in.html
If it was that important then Jesus or Paul would have made a big thing out of it. They clearly didn't.
If you would like to read about how I found myself without faith you can read an article here:
http://www.ecalpemos.org/2008/01/from-christian-to-atheist.html
WHAT ABOUT DARWIN AND LYELL'S QUALIFICATIONS ?
Darwin failed in everything and then scraped a degree in Theology.
Lyell was a lawyer and knew nothing about geology.
It is the TRUTH that matters not qualifications. But if your into qualifications
why believe Darwin and Lyell and Dawkins and
Attenborough who comment outside their field
of expertise all the time.
I heard that Dawkins refused a debate with BEHE
since it was out of his field.
Scientists still believe in Darwins crazy theory. But Darwin had more excuse since he
thought a cell was a blob.
An average standard grade student has more knowledge about cellular biology than Darwin had.
Peer review ? does this box ticking exercise
mean anything when dangerous drugs get "peer review" ???
Gordon you are wrong about Jesus Paul and Peter.
They said that on the deliberate ignoring of the creation sentence will be pronounced.
Eg " God is known by the things he has made.............
SELECTION OF THE FITTEST IS NOT A DESIGN MECHANISM.
Even evolutionists now admit this - it can select the fastest antelope - but it would still be an antelope.
It cant redesign the DNA of a bear into a whale
which is what Darwin thought - he knew nothing
about DNA . What are YOUR qualifications for
making this statement.
This article is not about creation vs evolution.
The issue of qualifications is not that Dr McMurtry has none, but that he claims to have them, but doesn't. He does his argument no favours by doing this.
Most Christians do not believe in creationism and accept evolution. Until the early 1990's it was entirely possible to be an evangelical Christian in the UK without being a creationist. Now the creationist position is being made a touchstone of people's faith and this is wrong, as is the move towards a denial of reason in all its forms as a test of faith.
Gordon thanks for publishing my last two comments. I listen to Grady a lot and have found nothing he is saying contradicts other maybe more qualified scientists.
Such things as ALL coal carbon dating to around 40,000 years.
There should not be a trace left.
Same with diamonds C14 dating to 40,000 years. Fossils are dating around 40,000 years.
In a national geographic program they documented how a deer turned into a whale. They did not explain how about 3 billion characters of DNA code of a deer changed into a
whales DNA that can capture squid
12000 ft under the sea. This is unscientific fairy story with no evidence whatsoever.
How would the DNA of a deer know how to change its DNA into say a sonar device better than any human can make. How does the whale /deer evolve an underwater feeding mechanism at the same time as its offspring. You dont need a PHD to see the impossibility of this.
I have been in education for 25 years and I am not impressed by a paper qualification but how the student thinks.
Dawkins and Attenborough are really taxonomists. Eg two stone
bones look the same so the creatures must be related. But they always talk and write out of their fields.
Compare the bones of a poodle and
a great dane - totally different -but they are still dogs.
The theory of evolution does not even have a rationale now that the
DNA code has been discovered.
I can give you lots of quotes from
diehard but honest evolutionists who say they have found nothing to support the theory in 150 years.
They know that selection of the fittest cannot design a new creature but can sometimes select the most suitable DNA in a species
eg for a racehorse or a carthorse
but still horses.
I have never seen him pushing his qualifications and we all have skeletons in our family history - whats his ancestors got to do with what he is saying.
Jesus was a creationist who said if you dont believe the books of Moses you will not believe in me. In that way an eternal sentence
was pronounced on the rich man's brothers .
Frightening yes - have a look at Dr Rawlings
website ONCE a athiest cardiac surgeon . He brings people back from the dead- terrifying.
I don't want to extend this into a debate about evolution, but if someone is giving an apparently scientific presentation and has the title "Dr" the logical assumption is that the person is a scientist, not someone with an honorary doctorate in theology. At the time Grady McMurtry was launched in the UK by Revelation TV there was great emphasis placed on his qualifications because this gave his claims greater authority to the general public. He often talks about being brought up in a University where his father was a professor and that he spent time in the science labs. However, his father was a lecturer in political science, not science science. That's why his family background is important.
If belief in creationism is not necessary to be a Christian then why make a big thing of it? Surely it will just put people off. I know it puts me off! 20 years ago it was not the touchstone of orthodoxy that it is now.
I don't think Jesus did believe in Genesis 1-3 as a historical record. He was a Jew so he would have been able to recognise the poetry and metaphor. Just as there does not need to be a literal prodigal son, there does not need to be a literal Adam.
I can't imagine Jesus believing that God put Adam to sleep, removed a rib and made Eve from it. God would not need to do that to create Eve. The reason its there is as a poetic way of explaining the relationship between male and female. If you take it as a historical record you lose a lot of the message it contains.
Hi Gordon, I have just seen one of Dr McMurty's lectures on Revelation tv. I thought i would check out his credentials, I could find nothing on Wikipedia ( apart from a page on his father, and his links with Alister Crowley). He made a big point in his lecture about the fallacy of "random chance" & "survival of the fittest", I would have thought someone of his "alledged" calibre would have a decent grasp on the workings of evolution.
GORDONS BLOG RE EVOLUTION
Bonnie - if you know anything about evolution you will understand
that Darwins " natural selection "
is NOT a DESIGN process. Darwin's Finches are still Finches and his Iguanas are still Iguanas. The Finch's beak has an inbuilt mechanism to adapt to surroundings.
Darwin had an excuse - he knew nothing about cellular biology
and failed everything except " Theology - which with his dad's influence - you know.....nice big house etc.
Your DNA contains a 3 billion
character code all about you.
It is wrapped into every cell in your body . It is 7 foot long and never gets tangled.
It is your code and is fixed and even corrects itself for errors.
Don't worry your descendants will not be " selected" to turn into a bird or a whale.
What Dr Mcmurtry is saying is backed up by intelligent design scientists Like Behe and Denton.
So you should look at what he is saying rather than scrummaging about his past. Lyell the “ father”
of geology was a lawyer .
To believe evolution you have to believe that a pig cow or Darwins Bear redesigned its DNA BY ACCIDENT into a squid chasing whale - which can dive to 12000 feet.
Have you ever thought of any fish
evolving out of the sea into an mammal - then evolving back into a whale ??????
Can you give me one intermediate
example - their should be thousands
as Darwin himself said.
CHRISTIAN Love from 6 day creationist Christian - Charles Allan .
Bonnie why not listen to what he is saying
rather than trying to dish the dirt on him and
his family. We all have skeletons in our cupboards.
He is not the only creationist and
also says that a scientific belief in creationism is not necessary for salvation as long as you believe that God is all powerful and Jesus came in the flesh was crucified and rose from the daed.
Post a Comment