Posted on 02/10/2005 1:06:55 PM PST by restornu
Since you've set the general tone of the debate with scatology, why would those of us who abjure such vulgarity care enough to be courteous to you? Wouldn't it be pearls before swine?
The author is a sociologist, which is a contender for the most worthless degree in the universe.
Uggghh...that made my head hurt.
Baylor has turned into a bit of a pit. The only reason they got included in the Big 12 was big influence in the Texas political scene. They're really just a Bible college masquerading as a University.
No...I would have to say that one is just above an Education Major.
"What percentage of Americans under 40 would like fries with that?"
Some education majors can at least play football. Sociology majors can't do anything.
If you want to know a little more of science, pick up a textbook. If you want to feed irrational prejudices, go right ahead with Strobel. Just don't kid yourself you're learning any science.
Thanks for the ping. The author of the article sure used a lot of words, a true artist. I couldn't find where he/she had made a single viable/tenable argument anywhere in it though. It takes a lot of talent to say so much and so little at the exact same time.
Yes, I had a fairly high opinion of AEI. On the other hand, here's a list of their fellows. What field of human learning would you say is conspicuously absent?
Hey, that's not fair. Merton, Williamson, and others have provided invaluable insights into the functioning of human institutions, which are now being applied in corporate finance, business strategy, and, more broadly, institutional economics.
Of course, they did most of their stuff 40-50 years go. I'm an financial economist, not a sociologist, so I'm not up on what they're up to now.
They're a political advocacy institution, not a scientific one, so I don't think it's fair to hold against them their lack of scientists on the staff. That being the case, however, they shouldn't be pontificating on science.
Actually, they're not being completely forthcoming with the truth. He was a Professor of Sociology and Comparative Religion at U. Washington. He's still listed on the comparative religion faculty. Looks like most of his published work has been on religion.
Now why would they have omitted to mention that?
Nah, his first job was in 1955. That would make him born circa 1937, which means he's 68 or so. I'd guess he retired at UW, moved somewhere warmer (and dryer), and gives an occasional class to a more simpatico audience than he was used to at UW, to supplement his TIAA-CREF.
Thus outing himself as a Creationist. No other group has to explain their position at the beginning of an article.
Did you notice those quotes? Those are all common creationist canards that you usually see on every creationist website that purports to have quotes from established scientists on what they think of evolution. I'd bet the Quote Mine Project has each of them already there.
Had the author given any evidence of such, it would have been interesting. He fails to define where he thinks a species boundary lies.
AEI has no credibility as a scientific think tank. By pushing really stupid articles like this one (which even uses the cats into dogs or vice versa canard), they lose credibility in other fields. No one can afford to take them seriously on other issues such as the greenhouse effect or social security reform.
Typical of Creationists. No science, just noise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.