Re: Commentary: Sub-standard science standards, still
- From: Kermit <unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:51:48 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 5, 11:59 am, _Arthur <Arth...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:09 pm, Dwib <dwibd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:26 am, jspace...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By JAMES A. SMITH SR.
Executive Editor
Published February 4, 2008
From the article:
No doubt, a large majority of scientists continue to tenaciously hold
to Darwinian evolution, at times, with religious faith-like fervor.
But more than 700 highly credentialed scientists agree with the
approach taken by these states affirming the statement, "We are
skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"
Good grief! What is it with these people!!! They seem to have no
concept of scientific methods.
Let the scientists work on enhancing the theory of evolution BUT teach
kids the current theory.
Dwib
Highly credentialed ? Are you kidding ?
oh, wait, you *are* kidding yourself.
No, many of them *are decent scientists. What they are in addition are
naive regarding the sleazy tactics of Creationists. It has been noted
by scientists who are regulars in this newsgroup that there is really
nothing wrong with that statement in itself, except that it lends
itself to misrepresentation.
Neutral drift and sexual selection are two unmentioned mechanisms
known to contribute to the diversity of life that we see around us.
There may be other, yet unknown or not generally accepted processes.
And theories should always be carefully examined and looked at for
flaws or other shortcomings, yes? Many of the folks who signed this
were simply used to working with other scientists and such - that is,
honest people. They did not recognize the signs of duplicity. At least
a few have demanded retroactively that their names be removed.
What that statement says to knowledgeable and careful thinkers and
what it says to a scientifically illiterate congregation being whipped
into a frenzy are two very different things.
By the way, the proper way to contest or debunk a scientific theory,
is to write a scientific paper showing EVIDENCE that one aspect of the
theory is wrong. Write it, publish it, and defend your position.
Indeed.
Kermit
.
- References:
- Commentary: Sub-standard science standards, still
- From: jspaceman
- Re: Commentary: Sub-standard science standards, still
- From: Dwib
- Re: Commentary: Sub-standard science standards, still
- From: _Arthur
- Commentary: Sub-standard science standards, still
- Prev by Date: Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
- Next by Date: Re: *** Post of the Month (POTM) for January 2008: Vote Now! ***
- Previous by thread: Re: Commentary: Sub-standard science standards, still
- Next by thread: Re: Commentary: Sub-standard science standards, still
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
