Mr Garner can, of course, handle the creationist movement as, when and where it erroneously describes him as "Dr".
Ah it would appear he has detailed the whole thing on his bloghttp://www.thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/
Where he helpfully points out that
The claim that I call myself “Dr Garner” is likewise erroneous, and the blogger provides no evidence to support it. I have categorically never called myself “Dr Garner” and I do not have a PhD, earned or otherwise. I am at a loss as to how the blogger came to this conclusion, especially since my credentials (as they were in March 2008) are accurately reported on the very first slide of the presentation that she is seeking to critique, namely “BSc, FGS”. (I have since also obtained the MSc in Geoscience).
But neglects to point out - on his blog - that the evidence comes from the various creationist institutions such as ICR etc!
Now I'm not sure if these are the e mails that Paul is forbidding Mark to post but they are clearly there on Paul's blog
!!! As they are now in the public domain, namely on Pauls blog
, I guess it is ok and not a breach of trust to copy them here. I have not seen the originals anyway but these do smack of the burning martyr complex of your average creationist.
You are now seeking (without any evidence at all) to pass the buck onto ICR. The fact is that members of your forum plainly stated that I was falsely claiming to have a doctorate and that I had misrepresented the nature of my first degree, the former evidently based on hearsay from an internet atheist. Only later was an error in my title on a single ICR web page brought into the discussion, with no evidence that was the source of the internet atheist’s error and despite the fact that ICR made that error in good faith and very quickly corrected it as soon as it was drawn to its attention.
Your suggested solution to these aspersions upon my personal honesty and integrity (namely to blame ICR) is unconscionable and clearly intended to divert attention from the mistakes and worse of your own forum members. It is one thing for ICR to have made a simple error in calling me “Dr” and quite another thing for those associated with BCSE to publicly claim that I am wilfully misrepresenting my qualifications, a very serious allegation as I have repeatedly said, and one that warrants a full aas I have repeatedly said, and one that warrants a full apology and retraction.
Now I'm not quite sure about the statement 'pass the buck' on to the ICR!!! Or why he thinks it is wrong to blame ICR!! ICR are to blame Paul, I hate to point that out! They are the ones claiming you are a PhD!
Now the ICR is a leading creationist research (ha ha ha ha - well loosest possible interpretation of the word research) organisation. One of THE leading creationist 'research' institutions. They have clearly made the mistake, therefore they ARE to blame. NOT bcse, who should assume that leading creationist 'research' organisation should really get the qualifications of their leading creationist 'researchers' correct. Therefore there is no reason at all for bcse to need to apologise. They merely repeated an error made by Paul peers in the creation 'science' industry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They should of course state that they merely repeated the ICR claims and that there is no other means of checking creationist qualifications really.
I am now hoping to read on Paul's blog
some similarly stern e mails of a similar tone to the ICR!! They've been very naughty leading people to believe Paul is a Dr and besmirching his good name by making him look like a liar (tho hasn't set in stone already done that? I think so). Of course I'd also be looking for some sternly worded emails to the very naughty members of ECG who called him Dr as well.
Now if these aren't forthcoming asap on his blog then I really will be forced to think him a tad hypocritical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!