The Crafty Attacks on Evolution

The New York Slimes ^ | 23 January 2005 | EDITORIAL

[narby]

Testing.

[shubi]

LOL

[shubi]

In your dreams. ;-)

[shubi]

Funny how creationists use the truth about themselves to try to refute science.

[bondserv]

I am not quite sure why you can't see that my complaint has always been the interpretation of the scientific data. The progress of science is the raw scientific data applied to formulated physical laws. Other than quantum physics, all of the physical laws have been mapped out by the Creationists. Advanced understanding of the one area that is still discoverable, quantum mechanics, has hit a 150 year road block.

To help you jump the chasm that you seem to be trapped by, consider the Constitution of the United States. As the Liberal mind piles on their perspective, the BS that gets floated as "Constitutional" gums up the system. The Scientific community has been held hostage by the Liberal Mind.

What we are witnessing is a revolution in the market place of free ideas. A very conservative concept. The watchwords being, open to discussion and persuasion. Good science always allows the data to lead.

[MississippiMan]

Yup, that's us: WILY. What I find amusing/telling is how freaked out evolutionists are over the possibility of just discussing something else, the possibility of just mentioning that there are holes in the theory that might warrant a discussion. Can you imagine this kind of reaction to simple discussion of any other scientific discipline? The whole thing is laughable and they're so myopic that they don't get it.

Over and out, my wily friend.

MM

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . so you just brush it off as irrelevant.

That's wording it too strongly. It's suckered enough folks to be exceedingly relevant.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Are scientists lying when they present Evolution, or are they just "wrong"?

I don't know. What do you call it when useful idiots do what they do? It's not exactly lying. There is no attachment of mendacity to their motive or self perception. They are certainly wrong, and they are agents for promoting and spreading wrong ideas. Their ideas belong in a Philosophy of Science class.

Science itself, however, can get along just fine without their musings about evolution, just like it can along just fine without musings about creation. Science has gotten along very well for millennia without them, and it will continue to do so.

[Fester Chugabrew]

And creationists call us "arrogant".

When it comes to arrogance your tag line says it all.

[Right Wing Professor]

The only way one can speak of "billions of years" of history is to offer up conjecture.

No, it's a reasonable inference from (among other pieces of data) the abundance of natural isotopes combined with the measured rates of radioactive decay; from the measured size of the universe combined with the velocity of light; and from the rates of other chemcial and nuclear processes combined with the present state of the Universe. Nothing conjectural about it.

[narby]

I'm actually quite proud of my tag line. Arrogant maybe.

Do you realize that God's design has operated non-stop, 24/7/365 for almost 3 billion years?

God's design is almost infinitly adaptable to changing conditions. It handles earthquakes, tsunamis, planetary disasters on a global scale.

Just imagine sitting down and thinking up a design that would operate that well! No human could possibly have done it. Few can even imagine something as grand, as you certianly prove every post.

God, being THE truly Intellegent Designer, certianly designed the greatest invention ever observed. Evolution.

[gobucks]

Science does not study morals.

Agreed. In fact, science doesn't study jack.

Most scientists, otoh, do not study morals .... on purpose. In fact, their political work environments dis-incentivize them to even discuss it out loud.

They DO study that which will lead to fame in peer reviewed journals and anything that will lead to increased gov't grant awards.

They DON'T study anything which could make people so grown up that they might actually become more less reliant on what gov't teachers tell them regarding how to think for themselves.

[Right Wing Professor]

Those who foist the Theory of Evolution upon the science classroom are not to be confused with scientists.

I've been doing scientific research for the last 30 years, and have a degree or two from reputable science departments in institutions even you may have heard of. According to popular usage, therefore, I am a scientist. I also teach the chemical basis of evolution at the introductory college level. Your statement, therefore, is factually false, and is, in fact, the usual devoid-of-substance bluster we've come to expect from you.

[Right Wing Professor]

In fact, science doesn't study jack.

It takes a peculiarly high level of ignorance to send this out on a world-wide web designed by a scientist, using a computer whose components depend on the scientific discoveries of semiconductivity, silicon, cathode rays, electricity.... In fact, I really wonder if your typical Iranian Ayatollah could aspire to this pinnacle of utter separation from reality.

[nasamn777]

Having read through the comments, I would say that few of the critics could tell me what is ID. The same can be said for the authors who are critical of ID. But, who cares about honest reporting and honest science. It is propagated by the lefties and ignorant conservatives who don't know anything about science. Laugh!

The scientific establishment is dominated by lefties who are biased by their naturalism dogma. It is time for a revolution to bring ID into the mainstream. We will overcome the flat-earth Darwinian-naturalists.

[narby]

They DO study that which will lead to fame in peer reviewed journals and anything that will lead to increased gov't grant awards.

Just imagine the fame a scientist would receive if he could prove the existence of God, by proving Intelligent Design.

The Nobel prize would be just the beginning.

Science actually loves controversy. It gives them an excuse to ask for money, to "clear up" whatever is troubling it.

This is why the conspiracy theories that science is covering up ID are so hilarious. A good scientist would give his right arm to be able to prove something as big as discovering "God".

[narby]

It is time for a revolution to bring ID into the mainstream. We will overcome the flat-earth Darwinian-naturalists.

Go right ahead and invent the "God-o-meter" to show His presence. You'll be famous and rich.

Let me know when you get close so I can invest in your patents.

[Fester Chugabrew]

No, it's a reasonable inference . . .

I've used the word "reasonable" in connection with the word "conjecture." As far as I'm concerned, "reasonable inference" and "reasonable conjecture" hold equal weight where objective reality is concerned. Neither of them attain to the level of "fact."

[nasamn777]

Can you tell me the basic idea of ID? Your comments seem to show how much you know about it. Have you read any books on the topic? Probably not -- like most the other critics!

[Fester Chugabrew]

I also teach the chemical basis of evolution at the introductory college level.

So, on occasion you divest yourself of the responsibilities of science and enter into making reasonable inferences about the world around you. Nothing wrong with that. I hope you offer your inferences with a reasonable dose of qualifiers.