Why the need to embellish?

Over here, bachelor's prepared electronics engineer* creationist Joe G. engages in some standard creationist tactics - the one I document below its the tried and true embellishment of one's hero's credentials in an effort to make arguments based on their claims more impressive and irreproachable.
In a discussion on the nested hierarchy as seen in the phylogeny of living things, Joe writes:

OK wait- we have Zachriel, the non-authority, non-expert, and non-scientist saying:
[...]
And we have Dr Denton, authority, expert and scientist saying:

What is he an authortiy in? An expert? Here is what Denton's own CV[1] says his areas of expertise are [I have left in only the description for his work in human genetics for to leave it as only a title would invite unwarranted embellishment and exteapolation from Denton acolytes]:

Cell Differentiation:The differentiation of the red blood cell

Pharmacology: The pharmacokinetics of amoxycillin and paracetamol

Human Genetics
I commenced working in the field of human genetics in 1984.[NOTE - his first book came out in 1986] My major research interest and aim since then has been to locate and identify the genes responsible for the various inherited retinal degenerations in man - a heterogeneous set of diseases which cause severe visual disability in 20 million people world wide. The two types of retinal degeneration which have been the main focus of my work have been the X linked and the autosomal recessive type of retinitis pigmentosa (RP). As a result of my efforts in this area, several new RP genes have been identified and this has added substantially to our knowledge of the genetics of retinal disease. Other genetic diseases I have studied include - autosomal dominant RP, X linked Megalocornea, Lebers Optic Atrophy, Blepharphimosis, and Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Since 1986, I have authored and co-authored over 50 papers in the field.

X linked retinitis pigmentosa

Autosomal recessive retinitis pigmentosa

Autosomal dominant RP, X linked Megalocornea, Lebers Optic Atrophy

Blepharophimosis, and Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Complex genetic mental disorders


Odd - I see nothing there regarding evolution, phylogenetics, etc.
What Joe G. has produced is what Jon Sarfati (ironically) likes to label the argumentum ad verecundiam, more commonly known as the argument from false authority.

Add to the fact that nothing in Denton's professional history qualifies him as an expert in any of the relevant material mentioned in the discussion at the linked blog (nor in anything he wrote about in his anti-Darwin books) is the fact that his book was thoroughly trashed by ACTUAL experts on the subjects he discusses, and in fact, his sections on phylogenetics were horribly naive and uninformed[2].

This is standard creationist antics. Embellishing the credentials of one of your propagandists and systematically denigrating the actual credentials of those with a contrary opinion.



[1]http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:baoLA8KHcyYJ:www.templeton.org/biochem-finetuning/papers/denton_cv.doc+Michael+Denton+CV&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7

[2] just one example: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/denton.html#ghiselin

*I only mention this because at one time, Joe G. was claiming that because he had a bachelors of science degree, he should be considered a scientist...