Okay, We Give Up [Scientific American "Caves" on Evolution]

Scientific American ^ | 01 April 2005 (ponder that) | Editorial staff

[hineybona]

yes , I understnad that .It dosent negate my comment at all.

[RightWingNilla]

So doesn't that work against your theory?

Not really.

Reason is on the side of conservatism. A fact distorted by the creation science 6000 yr old earth folks.

[FredZarguna]

Okay, We Give Up [Scientific American "Caves" on Evolution]

You should also have scare-quoted "Scientific" and "American".

[Right Wing Professor]

Thanks for posting one big dollop of sanity.

[inquest]

And of course if it had gone the other way, if scientists were more liberal than people in other disciplines, you'd cite that as proof positive that your theory is correct. So in other words, your theory is completely unfalsifiable. It just goes the way you want it to go.

Whoever's side reason is on, it's not on yours.

[inquest]

It pretty much does negate your comment. You said that evolution was the "tool and method" of God's creation. Then you acnkowledge that it can work without any superintending direction. It's either one or the other.

[Oztrich Boy]

Perhaps they should talk to one of the 160 scientists who are pro-Creation.

For some of those it would require a ouija board. And as for the rest

[Oztrich Boy]

the Onion piece on Harry Potter?

You mean that wasn't true, either?

[RightWingNilla]

So in other words, your theory is completely unfalsifiable.

Its not a theory of any kind.

Its simply an observation that many people who work in science distance themselves from anything so unabashedly unscientific as creationism (as peddled by ICR/AIG).

[inquest]

It was more than just an observation. You were attempting to use that as an explanation for why the academic scientific establishment is so leftist.

[RightWingNilla]

You were attempting to use that as an explanation for why the academic scientific establishment is so leftist.

From my experience, it certainly is one of the reasons.

[inquest]

What specifically has been your experience? "You're a conservative, therefore you must be one of them creationists"? How were you able to discern the actual motive of the people making the decisions?

[exDemMom]

Funny how the so-called "scientists" worship their theories with a faith unmatched by the most fanatical of any other religion.

Umm, are you aware that scientists do not, in fact, worship scientific theories? Curiosity about the natural world is what draws us into science; the ability to play with incredibly expensive high-tech toys is what keeps us there. I'm kidding about that last--the expensive toys are just a bonus. I don't "believe" in evolution the way I believe in God; I accept evolution because it is a unifying theory of biology, because it helps me to devise hypotheses that I can test. It's no more a "belief" (or object of worship) than the theory of electromagnetism.

[RightWingNilla]

"You're a conservative, therefore you must be one of them creationists"?

Sure. I've heard statements like this one too often.

[Dimensio]

I do not know exactly how old the earth is. Evolutionists proport to know, but they "know" only based on falliable measurements created by flawed humans with evolutionary preconceptions!

Explain to me how the first methods that suggested an ancient (billions of years) earth were founded upon "evolutionary preconceptions" when they were formulated well before evolution was a scientific theory.

[skinkinthegrass]

..That thing was pretty cool..

HEY, THANKS, for the link. :))

[skinkinthegrass]

Thanks, for the lucid explaination...

as a my default position, I prefer "the blind watchmaker" model, but G*D provided the spark!.

[Dimensio]

Actually, the list presented by AiG is of living scientists. Of course, many of them are not biologists or in any other field that matters when it comes to credibility on the subject of evolution.

[2ndreconmarine]

be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming

Alas, this is precisely what those of us who are scientists and conservatives have been worried about. They (the liberals) use creationism to attack other, reasonable ideas. So, they equate missile defense and a disbelief in global warming with creationism. It is, of course, a ridiculous argument. Guilt by association. However, we (a segment of the conservative community) provide them with the ammunition by supporting the idiocy of creationism and ID.

[2ndreconmarine]

I am a person who believes in evolution and I subscribe to Scientific American, but still I found this editorial smarmy, condescending and arrogant

Me too!!!! You got that right. I also quit my subscription some time ago.