Replies

What I want to know, Mr. Morality, is how the term "murder" came to be discussed in relation to my post?

I explained it once and you didn't get it. I'm not sure explaining it twice would help. Regardless, this is an excellent quote from the article:

"It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics," said Jed Macosko, a research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Science can’t grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."

Be careful or you will get what you wish for. I for one, would love to see a history of science class taught -- one that teaches how science is done and how scientists think about problems.

I explained it once and you didn't get it. I'm not sure explaining it twice would help. Regardless, this is an excellent quote from the article:

"It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics," said Jed Macosko, a research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Science can’t grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."

You are one piece of work. You have the nerve to claim that I'm not catching on to whatever this person is implying. I never once discussed any of this. Never once mentioned stem cell research or abortion. There...is that the "murder" you are talking about? You are so bogged down in your dogma that you haven't seen the forest for the trees.

I 'll repeat this one more time only. I said in my first post to you that conservatism could be defined by the 4 points I listed. I said nothing about scientific research. I said nothing about morality other than the fact that it's everyone's personal and private business. Do you get it? What do you not understand? If you need to preach so badly, I suggest you go and get yourself a frock and point your sermons at those who are eager to hear them.

"It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics," said Jed Macosko, a research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Science can’t grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."

This is poppycock, as you well know. There are no "institutional gatekeepers" -- if you want to challenge a theory, go for it. Get published in any scientific journal, if your work is up to their standards, or even publish your own "alternative" journal. If your ideas have any merits it'll gain converts. If not, well...

But classrooms full of schoolkids are *not* the proper forum for you to throw your fringe ideas around in.