"For the past 150 years, evolutionary biology has only gotten stronger and stronger"
and
"What they're concerned about (not "afraid of") is the way in which creationist pseudoscience has used organized propaganda campaigns in order to undermine legitimate science, and sow dishonest confusion and doubt among the public and students about large numbers of fields of science. This is the kind of road that the Soviet Union went down when it embraced Lysenkoism, which led enormous human suffering and death"
.....................
You have contradicted yourself -- is evolution theory getting "stronger and stronger" or is it in danger of being undermined by second rate misrepresentors with little science to back them up? You can't have it both ways.
Second, the practical applications of evolution such as genetic modification, evolving resistance, etc. can be accepted by all without ever reaching the concept of a Prime Mover.
It is the religion of secularism that insists on putting its stamp of closed on that one. Further my point is that a closed mind is dangerous from whichever direction it comes.
If Meyer's article was so faulty why wasn't that the subject of the criticism and rebuke?
No, I have not.
-- is evolution theory getting "stronger and stronger" or is it in danger of being undermined by second rate misrepresentors with little science to back them up? You can't have it both ways.
Since the two observations concern different realms, they are in no way contradictory.
Yes, the science of evolutionary biology has gotten stronger and stronger -- it has been validated by more and more evidence, more and more validation tests, and has survived more and more potential falsification tests.
Meanwhile, the public *perception* of it is under assault by creationist propaganda.
There's nothing contradictory about observing that the science itself has become more validated, at the same time that public *opinion* has gotten more muddled.
Was this really such a hard distinction that you couldn't grasp it on your own?
Second, the practical applications of evolution such as genetic modification, evolving resistance, etc. can be accepted by all without ever reaching the concept of a Prime Mover.
Tell that to the creationists who scream bloody murder over the very concept of evolutionary biology, and geology, and radiometric dating methods, and Big Bang physics, and... The list is a long one.
It is the religion of secularism that insists on putting its stamp of closed on that one.
Go tell it to someone who actually might "insist" on such a thing. I don't, and I don't know anyone (or any scientist) who does. Nor do I know anyone who subscribes to any paradigm that could in any way be accurately described as "religion of secularism". That term gets thrown around a lot, but it seems to be mostly a fantasy of the "nonsecular".
Further my point is that a closed mind is dangerous from whichever direction it comes.
And I agree.
If Meyer's article was so faulty why wasn't that the subject of the criticism and rebuke?
That *is* the subject of most of the criticism and rebuke. But since the creationists don't want to deal with *that* subject, they spend most of their time screaming about the few people who were personally obnoxious to Sternberg, and muttering about how he's the new Galileo. After all, it's *so* much better propaganda to beat the "suppression" horse to death, than it is to actually argue their "scientific" case on its alleged "merits".