Attacking someone's credibility by attacking their character or questioning their intelligence, is no "proof" that they are wrong. If science doesn't have a better defense than that, they are in trouble. Shouldn't they be using facts instead?
Archival ping.
> Attacking someone's credibility by attacking their character or questioning their intelligence, is no "proof" that they are wrong.
You know, the same thing is said every time a "Christian" coems on FR and declares that evolutionists are "God haters" or Liberals some such similar drivel.
> If science doesn't have a better defense than that, they are in trouble.
Who says science doesn't? The problem is that in this case, science is up against entreched dogma with easy answers. Sciecne has been up against such before, and has often temporarily lost. Science lost to the Greek Pythagorean mystics, to the early Church, to the Commies, to the Nazis, to the Muslims. Being factually right is no sure defense against being politically incorrect.
> Shouldn't they be using facts instead?
"They" are. Evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting it, from physics to genetics to paleontology to even astronomy... and it has nothing standing against it except for religious faith.
But as the Parisians are discovering, religious faith often trumps reason.