[Camel Joe]

Are these the same scientists that accept the "scientific" studies relating to secondhand smoke? I'm afraid the scientific community has succumbed to politics.

[MineralMan]

"Are these the same scientists that accept the "scientific" studies relating to secondhand smoke?"

No, they aren't the same scientists.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Are these the same scientists that accept the "scientific" studies relating to secondhand smoke?"

Do you see anything here about smoking? If not, what does your post have to do with this topic? Do you actually have anything to add to the debate over ID?

[BitWielder1]

You confuse Science and Scientists. Scientists are human being and thus suceptible to authority, prestige, pressure and greed.
Only by constant cross-checking can Scientists strive for the ideals of Science.
Real-life science is not perfect (whatever is?) but Science a constantly growing
and most importantly self-correcting system, very much unlike most religious
or political dogmatic systems.

[seastay]

Although scientific theories are necessary to explain the universe, they are not always sufficient, if the boundary conditions of the problem are not defined well. Second hand smoke is a good example, it could be dangerous but the system has be closed and well defined, no fresh air intervening to dilute for the conclusions to mean anything

Likewise, the universe would have to be a closed universe for evolution to hold true, no outside intervention, which really cannot be proven or disproved by science.

Therefore the rigors of science are only as good as the assumptions, which in turn means that it takes faith that the assumptions are correct, yet the reliance of faith itself is the only argument used by scientists to disprove that outside intervention to the creation our existence cannot exist.

[BenLurkin]

These are the same rigors of science which turned from treating a recognized mental illness (homosexuality) to saying that those who condemn homosexuality are mentally ill (homophobic).

[CodeToad]

"I'm afraid the scientific community has succumbed to politics.
"

Considering that the vast majority of "studies" we seem to read about come from grants, I'd say that the politics of the grant giver play a significant role in the outcome of the "study". Kinda like global warming. Not a shread of scientific proof but everyone seems to say, "Every knows there is global warming, why else would everyone be saying it's true?"

[boycottmovies]

one more for our side. By the way, we've decided to take a trick from the Dems playbook, and have stopped going to movies. Why subsidize an industry devoted to pressing the hard left Democratic agenda? Anyone agree with this?