Because it is agenda driven and result oriented. “I will prove what I believe.” That’s not science — or should I say, that never used to be science. Thanks to the global warming fruit loops, believing something now means truth with no more evidence than criticism of opposing points of view. Very sad.
“Because it is agenda driven and result oriented. “I will prove what I believe.” That’s not science — or should I say, that never used to be science. Thanks to the global warming fruit loops, believing something now means truth with no more evidence than criticism of opposing points of view. Very sad.”
Sure.
But his understanding and presentation of the genomics issue was accurate and informed.
I find this to be the case with a lot of these ICR articles. Good understanding and analysis of a question, making valid critical points, but then leaping to a foregone conclusion.