+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 41

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski
    posted at 6:35 pm on March 22, 2010 by CK MacLeod
    [ Culture ] printer-friendly


    The Deniable Darwin collects essays written from 1996 to 2009 mostly on the same general theme: That the insufferable pretensions and aggressive self-certainty of science ideologues prevent us from justly appreciating how much we actually have learned about the natural world, and how wonderfully little that is. He applies his dauntingly well-informed, remorselessly cogent skepticism to several fields of study – theoretical physics, mathematics, linguistics, molecular biology, and so on – but it’s his dismantlement of Darwinism that he takes to center stage for a virtuoso recital.

    The program’s highlights include two name-taking essays, the book’s title piece and another (“Has Darwin Met His Match?”) from seven years later, presented along with full replies from most of the named and regiments of their supporters, and extensive rebuttals from the author. Giving the impression of deep familiarity with the professional and popular literature, and advancing his critique in a richly literary style, Berlinski argues that the Darwinists remain very far from demonstrating and evidencing how evolution via random mutation and natural selection could explain what the evolutionists claim it explains – that is, everything.

    Berlinski’s ideas have been taken up by some Intelligent Design and Creationist writers and activists – including the sponsors of the Discovery Institute Press, which published this book – and that fact leads the Darwinists to accuse him, in brief, of the thought-crime of religious faith. The maneuver conveniently relieves them from confronting his argument on its own terms, particularly his denial that the only logical alternatives to Darwinian evolution are Biblical literalism and its cousins. The most you can say about Berlinski’s argument on this score – the argument he actually makes as opposed to the one he’s frequently assumed to be making – is that it points, insistently, to obviously “design-like” aspects of the natural world that no biologist has been able to explain except by childlike inferences, circular reasoning, and “just-so” stories – how this, that, or the other biological peculiarity might/must have served a survival purpose – and by scandalously oversold pseudo-experiments.

    It’s true that one expression for the goal-seeking-ness, design-like-ness of life and everything else might be “God,” but “God” is a word, and in some ways we know as little about words as we know about… most stuff. A great lover of language once informed the world that the closer we look at a word, the further it recedes from view, and his wisdom seems to apply to biological processes, the origin of the universe, the human mind, and the divine, too.

    For the non-scientist – as for some number of scientists, too – reaching a confident judgment on the underlying issues and disputes is impossible, but the responses of the Darwinists and other keepers of the faithless faiths tend to reinforce Berlinski’s argument: I’m happy to side provisionally with the debater who doesn’t rely on repetitious, ideologically rigid, churlishly defensive, and at times blatantly dishonest polemics. (Berlinski never touches on Climate Change, but the parallels with that debate are striking.) Maybe that’s a judgment from personal taste or political prejudice. Yet if we can’t really explain how the incredible yet inescapably fundamental complexity of a single functioning living cell arises and elaborates itself, armies of just-in-time enzymes translating intricately arranged protein instructions into vitality, then in the broad sense whatever else we know, or think we know, about the origins of higher organisms and ecosystems remains at root a narrative, a matter of taste or contingency, not a full-fledged theory in the same way that relativity and quantum mechanics are theories – good and tested to n decimals, as Berlinski likes to remind his readers.

    If there are definitive answers or sets of answers to these questions that are both accessible to and discoverable by human beings, we don’t have them yet. We’re not really even close. By taking us step by step through our answerlessness, Berlinski restores wonder, mystery, and humility to the discussion – while pointing to whole continents of thought and knowledge hardly even visited, much less mapped and settled.


    ,

    The Deniable Darwin




    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...vid-berlinski/
    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Do you want to actually discuss the fallacies that are present in this book, or are you just pointing out that yet another nonsense book on creationism has been published (by the long-since discredited Discovery Institute no less)?

    If the former, I'd suggest either the religious or science forums. If the latter, "wooohooo".

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,766

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    Do you want to actually discuss the fallacies that are present in this book, or are you just pointing out that yet another nonsense book on creationism has been published (by the long-since discredited Discovery Institute no less)?

    If the former, I'd suggest either the religious or science forums. If the latter, "wooohooo".
    You don't understand how difficult it is for pwrong to admit his African ancestry.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    I'm moving this to the Science Controversy section.
    While Yes I suppose it may arch into politics if one wants it to, the core of the topic is scientific... or religious.
    But in Science it goes.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    I seriously didn't think pwron could sink any lower. He is successfully proving the sterio type of the far right wing. Anti-science/Anti-Progress.

    I knew he blamed Al Gore for AWG and thought it was a massive world wide conspiracy by scientists.

    however, to put for that Evolution is a world wide conspiracy as well. Ah Well Lets make this simple.

    Pwrone If I may ask....

    Please post proof of I.D. Not disproof of evolution but proof of I.D. Varifiable, Testable, Proof.

    If the discovery insistute refuses to do the tests necissary to prove there own idea than why do you support what they will not.

    Your writer also believes that Astrology can predict the future.
    The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: Astrology and the Art of Prediction, 2003, ISBN 0-15-100527-3
    And your article was actually written 14 years ago.
    "The Deniable Darwin", Commentary, 1996
    It was also called deception, sadly I can't find the rebuttle since most people typically don't rehash 14 year old arguments. With the exception of creationists.
    Last edited by Spector567; 03-23-2010 at 12:54 PM.

  6. #6
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
    The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski
    posted at 6:35 pm on March 22, 2010 by CK MacLeod
    [ Culture ] printer-friendly


    The Deniable Darwin collects essays written from 1996 to 2009 mostly on the same general theme: That the insufferable pretensions and aggressive self-certainty of science ideologues prevent us from justly appreciating how much we actually have learned about the natural world, and how wonderfully little that is. He applies his dauntingly well-informed, remorselessly cogent skepticism to several fields of study – theoretical physics, mathematics, linguistics, molecular biology, and so on – but it’s his dismantlement of Darwinism that he takes to center stage for a virtuoso recital.

    The program’s highlights include two name-taking essays, the book’s title piece and another (“Has Darwin Met His Match?”) from seven years later, presented along with full replies from most of the named and regiments of their supporters, and extensive rebuttals from the author. Giving the impression of deep familiarity with the professional and popular literature, and advancing his critique in a richly literary style, Berlinski argues that the Darwinists remain very far from demonstrating and evidencing how evolution via random mutation and natural selection could explain what the evolutionists claim it explains – that is, everything.

    Berlinski’s ideas have been taken up by some Intelligent Design and Creationist writers and activists – including the sponsors of the Discovery Institute Press, which published this book – and that fact leads the Darwinists to accuse him, in brief, of the thought-crime of religious faith. The maneuver conveniently relieves them from confronting his argument on its own terms, particularly his denial that the only logical alternatives to Darwinian evolution are Biblical literalism and its cousins. The most you can say about Berlinski’s argument on this score – the argument he actually makes as opposed to the one he’s frequently assumed to be making – is that it points, insistently, to obviously “design-like” aspects of the natural world that no biologist has been able to explain except by childlike inferences, circular reasoning, and “just-so” stories – how this, that, or the other biological peculiarity might/must have served a survival purpose – and by scandalously oversold pseudo-experiments.

    It’s true that one expression for the goal-seeking-ness, design-like-ness of life and everything else might be “God,” but “God” is a word, and in some ways we know as little about words as we know about… most stuff. A great lover of language once informed the world that the closer we look at a word, the further it recedes from view, and his wisdom seems to apply to biological processes, the origin of the universe, the human mind, and the divine, too.

    For the non-scientist – as for some number of scientists, too – reaching a confident judgment on the underlying issues and disputes is impossible, but the responses of the Darwinists and other keepers of the faithless faiths tend to reinforce Berlinski’s argument: I’m happy to side provisionally with the debater who doesn’t rely on repetitious, ideologically rigid, churlishly defensive, and at times blatantly dishonest polemics. (Berlinski never touches on Climate Change, but the parallels with that debate are striking.) Maybe that’s a judgment from personal taste or political prejudice. Yet if we can’t really explain how the incredible yet inescapably fundamental complexity of a single functioning living cell arises and elaborates itself, armies of just-in-time enzymes translating intricately arranged protein instructions into vitality, then in the broad sense whatever else we know, or think we know, about the origins of higher organisms and ecosystems remains at root a narrative, a matter of taste or contingency, not a full-fledged theory in the same way that relativity and quantum mechanics are theories – good and tested to n decimals, as Berlinski likes to remind his readers.

    If there are definitive answers or sets of answers to these questions that are both accessible to and discoverable by human beings, we don’t have them yet. We’re not really even close. By taking us step by step through our answerlessness, Berlinski restores wonder, mystery, and humility to the discussion – while pointing to whole continents of thought and knowledge hardly even visited, much less mapped and settled.


    ,

    The Deniable Darwin




    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...vid-berlinski/
    .
    Even if the theory of Evolution was proved wrong, neither Creation nor Intelligent Design would be plausible alternative because neither is supported by evidence or data.

    They are both non-starters.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  7. #7
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
    The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski
    posted at 6:35 pm on March 22, 2010 by CK MacLeod
    [ Culture ] printer-friendly


    The Deniable Darwin collects essays written from 1996 to 2009 mostly on the same general theme: That the insufferable pretensions and aggressive self-certainty of science ideologues prevent us from justly appreciating how much we actually have learned about the natural world, and how wonderfully little that is. He applies his dauntingly well-informed, remorselessly cogent skepticism to several fields of study – theoretical physics, mathematics, linguistics, molecular biology, and so on – but it’s his dismantlement of Darwinism that he takes to center stage for a virtuoso recital.

    The program’s highlights include two name-taking essays, the book’s title piece and another (“Has Darwin Met His Match?”) from seven years later, presented along with full replies from most of the named and regiments of their supporters, and extensive rebuttals from the author. Giving the impression of deep familiarity with the professional and popular literature, and advancing his critique in a richly literary style, Berlinski argues that the Darwinists remain very far from demonstrating and evidencing how evolution via random mutation and natural selection could explain what the evolutionists claim it explains – that is, everything.

    Berlinski’s ideas have been taken up by some Intelligent Design and Creationist writers and activists – including the sponsors of the Discovery Institute Press, which published this book – and that fact leads the Darwinists to accuse him, in brief, of the thought-crime of religious faith. The maneuver conveniently relieves them from confronting his argument on its own terms, particularly his denial that the only logical alternatives to Darwinian evolution are Biblical literalism and its cousins. The most you can say about Berlinski’s argument on this score – the argument he actually makes as opposed to the one he’s frequently assumed to be making – is that it points, insistently, to obviously “design-like” aspects of the natural world that no biologist has been able to explain except by childlike inferences, circular reasoning, and “just-so” stories – how this, that, or the other biological peculiarity might/must have served a survival purpose – and by scandalously oversold pseudo-experiments.

    It’s true that one expression for the goal-seeking-ness, design-like-ness of life and everything else might be “God,” but “God” is a word, and in some ways we know as little about words as we know about… most stuff. A great lover of language once informed the world that the closer we look at a word, the further it recedes from view, and his wisdom seems to apply to biological processes, the origin of the universe, the human mind, and the divine, too.

    For the non-scientist – as for some number of scientists, too – reaching a confident judgment on the underlying issues and disputes is impossible, but the responses of the Darwinists and other keepers of the faithless faiths tend to reinforce Berlinski’s argument: I’m happy to side provisionally with the debater who doesn’t rely on repetitious, ideologically rigid, churlishly defensive, and at times blatantly dishonest polemics. (Berlinski never touches on Climate Change, but the parallels with that debate are striking.) Maybe that’s a judgment from personal taste or political prejudice. Yet if we can’t really explain how the incredible yet inescapably fundamental complexity of a single functioning living cell arises and elaborates itself, armies of just-in-time enzymes translating intricately arranged protein instructions into vitality, then in the broad sense whatever else we know, or think we know, about the origins of higher organisms and ecosystems remains at root a narrative, a matter of taste or contingency, not a full-fledged theory in the same way that relativity and quantum mechanics are theories – good and tested to n decimals, as Berlinski likes to remind his readers.

    If there are definitive answers or sets of answers to these questions that are both accessible to and discoverable by human beings, we don’t have them yet. We’re not really even close. By taking us step by step through our answerlessness, Berlinski restores wonder, mystery, and humility to the discussion – while pointing to whole continents of thought and knowledge hardly even visited, much less mapped and settled.


    ,

    The Deniable Darwin




    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...vid-berlinski/
    .
    The fact that this is your stance on Evolution proves, beyond a doubt, that you are an idiot. That you would base your beliefs without doing ths slighest bit of research...Totally void of the abililty to critically think.
    Last edited by LogicallyYours; 03-23-2010 at 02:21 PM.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Disproving or shedding doubt on Darwinism doesn't prove Creationism. Did I say that? Did the author of the OP article say that? Does Berlinski say that?


    Give the author of the post (CK MacLeod) credit for being spot on about the rabid shrieking hatred of opposing views that the Darwinists share.




    Just read this thread.



    Is there any other recent in-the-news ongoing debate this remind you of? Yep. Same people, too.


    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
    Disproving or shedding doubt on Darwinism doesn't prove Creationism. Did I say that? Did the author of the OP article say that? Does Berlinski say that?

    Give the author of the post (CK MacLeod) credit for being spot on about the rabid shrieking hatred of opposing views that the Darwinists share.

    Just read this thread.

    Is there any other recent in-the-news ongoing debate this remind you of? Yep. Same people, too..
    Yeah, it's too bad Berlinski's views aren't based on Reality. Now I know what you two have in common.

    You wanna weigh in regarding Evolution....bring it on...but, you're in over your head.

    Oh yeah, a tip before you make a fool of yourself..."Darwinists" = Those who can back up their science.
    Last edited by LogicallyYours; 03-23-2010 at 05:46 PM.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Disproving or shedding doubt on Darwinism doesn't prove Creationism. Did I say that? Did the author of the OP article say that? Does Berlinski say that?

    Give the author of the post (CK MacLeod) credit for being spot on about the rabid shrieking hatred of opposing views that the Darwinists share.



    Just read this thread.
    With respect pwrone I don’t think you fully understand the issue. You posted someone else’s post who intern reposted a 14 year old article. Everyone here just got done with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT just a little while ago. It was fully explained and talked about with respect and considerable thought.
    http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=126742
    By the very same people who you say have such hatred. I’d love to see you produce as much original text in such a well thought out manner.

    You’ve come in over a decade behind on the issue and just repeated one of the most inane pieces of garbage from the creationist propaganda mill.

    What you are reading is not hatred. It is annoyance and pained laughter as intelligent minds around the world cringe at what America has become. In matter such as this you either laugh or cry at the utter self-righteous hypercritical ignorance of the argument. I personally do not think you are aware of how terrible the argument is however it can summed up very simply.

    The reason that I.D. isn’t given credit in scientific circles is that they have no proof or evidence. There entire argument circles around saying “I don’t know how this works so this idea must be wrong and mine must be right”. The discovery institute (who you quoted) has been devoted to scientific study to prove I.D. for the past 15 years. In that time they have produced....... NOTHING. Zilch, nada. However, they stand proud saying they are being discriminated against. That they should be given equal time. Without equal effort. Sounds like affirmative action to me.

    A concept I’m certain you disagree with. Recognition comes with hard work.

    Work that proponents of I.D. have not done.

    It’s like suggesting that we should all learn hippy astrology and taro cards because man can’t predict the future. You it’s not going to work but it’s fancy and makes you feel good.

    Is there any other recent in-the-news ongoing debate this remind you of? Yep. Same people, too
    Fox’s new’s coverage of healthcare? And the many “opinion” pieces on it? Or are you referring to the people who ask you to back up your remarks with factual proof as opposed to propaganda?



    Maybe people here were too harsh on you. I will admit that. However, in their defence they thought you were versed on the topic since you had found read and felt the need to repost information from the discovery institute. Something only hard-line creationists do.

    If you want to continue this topic or others I welcome it. However, this is not the political forum. An opinion is pretty worthless unless you can back it up with at least a semi-reputable source or independent thought. (No more single sentence threads with an op-ed articles.) Your also going to have to play catch up or at the very least ask questions in a respectable manor because most of the arguments you’ll have for or against something. Everyone here has already heard and there are only so many times they are willing to repeat themselves.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    With respect pwrone I don’t think you fully understand the issue. You posted someone else’s post who intern reposted a 14 year old article. Everyone here just got done with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT just a little while ago. It was fully explained and talked about with respect and considerable thought.
    http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=126742
    By the very same people who you say have such hatred. I’d love to see you produce as much original text in such a well thought out manner.

    You’ve come in over a decade behind on the issue and just repeated one of the most inane pieces of garbage from the creationist propaganda mill.

    What you are reading is not hatred. It is annoyance and pained laughter as intelligent minds around the world cringe at what America has become. In matter such as this you either laugh or cry at the utter self-righteous hypercritical ignorance of the argument. I personally do not think you are aware of how terrible the argument is however it can summed up very simply.

    The reason that I.D. isn’t given credit in scientific circles is that they have no proof or evidence. There entire argument circles around saying “I don’t know how this works so this idea must be wrong and mine must be right”. The discovery institute (who you quoted) has been devoted to scientific study to prove I.D. for the past 15 years. In that time they have produced....... NOTHING. Zilch, nada. However, they stand proud saying they are being discriminated against. That they should be given equal time. Without equal effort. Sounds like affirmative action to me.

    A concept I’m certain you disagree with. Recognition comes with hard work.

    Work that proponents of I.D. have not done.

    It’s like suggesting that we should all learn hippy astrology and taro cards because man can’t predict the future. You it’s not going to work but it’s fancy and makes you feel good.

    Fox’s new’s coverage of healthcare? And the many “opinion” pieces on it? Or are you referring to the people who ask you to back up your remarks with factual proof as opposed to propaganda?



    Maybe people here were too harsh on you. I will admit that. However, in their defence they thought you were versed on the topic since you had found read and felt the need to repost information from the discovery institute. Something only hard-line creationists do.

    If you want to continue this topic or others I welcome it. However, this is not the political forum. An opinion is pretty worthless unless you can back it up with at least a semi-reputable source or independent thought. (No more single sentence threads with an op-ed articles.) Your also going to have to play catch up or at the very least ask questions in a respectable manor because most of the arguments you’ll have for or against something. Everyone here has already heard and there are only so many times they are willing to repeat themselves.

    I have perused the "respectful manner" that all those on this forum have demonstrated toward those who believe in a religion. Sorry, 'Christianity'.

    And, since all respondants are political forum members, no one can accuse me of trying to wade into thi9s ing cesspool of a forum. The thread was moved.



    Let's just quickly review your above post and then I will leave you to stew in your hatred and ignorance.

    Here is the very definition of "asshole": "What you are reading is not hatred. It is annoyance and pained laughter as intelligent minds around the world cringe at what America has become"

    Yes, yes. Poor America. From the canadian, yet.



    I was referring to the climate debate, which produces the same outraged keening and whining as does this. Again, in both cases, nothing has been proven yet you want to be treated as though it has. Then you get defensive when caught cheating.

    Think it ain't political? Same tactics, same whining and lying, same people doing it.

    Sorry. Just the way it is.


    Think those who believe in God are closed-minded? LOL


    In the future, I will simply provide links to this forum and it's 'learned faculty' of 'international experts' to anyone with any questions about the origins of species. Or, you know, anything else.


    Good Lord.



    .
    Last edited by pwrone; 03-23-2010 at 07:51 PM.
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
    I was referring to the climate debate, which produces the same outraged keening and whining as does this. Again, in both cases, nothing has been proven yet you want to be treated as though it has. Then you get defensive when caught cheating.
    Gravity hasn't been proven either, but we don't see people getting all up in arms about that. Everyone's quite content to let science be - and enjoy the benefits - until it conflicts with some other dogma, then all of a sudden it's "cheating".

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    Gravity hasn't been proven either, but we don't see people getting all up in arms about that. Everyone's quite content to let science be - and enjoy the benefits - until it conflicts with some other dogma, then all of a sudden it's "cheating".

    If you are truly content with the actions of the climate 'experts' , I will be shocked.


    Why should we accord them the respect that scientists deserve when they do not conduct themselves as legitimate scientists do?

    Think I am the only one who thinks this?


    Talk about dogma...





    ,
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    I have perused the "respectful manner" that all those on this forum have demonstrated toward those who believe in a religion. Sorry, 'Christianity'.
    And, since all respondants are political forum members, no one can accuse me of trying to wade into thi9s ing cesspool of a forum. The thread was moved.[/quote] They are also science and religious forum members and all the full responses didn't occur till after the move.

    As to accuse you? Your the one that wanted to discuss science. Why on earth would you post that in politics??? I'm sorry that you don't feel that you are able to do so with people who know what they are talking about. If you want I'm sure we can get mumbles to help back you up.

    You give as good as you get. Most children have figured that out. Cnance in the thread I showed you is more hardline Christian than you are and he was able to get very respectful responses. There is a reason you can’t. Your reputation precedes you. It will take time for it to go away.

    Let's just quickly review your above post and then I will leave you to stew in your hatred and ignorance.

    Here is the very definition of "asshole": "What you are reading is not hatred. It is annoyance and pained laughter as intelligent minds around the world cringe at what America has become"

    Yes, yes. Poor America. From the canadian, yet.
    What hatred. I fully explained what I was referring to in great detail. Of the industrialized nations America is the only nation to believe there is a scientific controversy around evolution. That is because anything scientifically controversial is stripped or diminished from the text books in order not to offend easily offended minds. Evolution was removed/reduced since the scopes trial in 1950 leading the current generation that can’t properly describe the theory.



    I was referring to the climate debate, which produces the same outraged keening and whining as does this. Again, in both cases, nothing has been proven yet you want to be treated as though it has. Then you get defensive when caught cheating.

    Think it ain't political? Same tactics, same whining and lying, same people doing it.

    Sorry. Just the way it is.
    No that’s your political opinion again. Have you listened to what the scientists have said? The media is a vast panic machine they want ratings. Kinda like that climate U-turn story you posted as you saw it was 100% fabrication created from online the expert said while ignoring the other 5 pages. It was very dishonest.

    Why would you listen to a bunch of people who can’t even describe the theory properly? I know more about global warming than Glen Beck does.


    Think those who believe in God are closed-minded? LOL
    That’s just silly and you know it. With over 90% of America believing in God I’d say and most of the world believing in some diety. Most of whom disagree with you on matters of global warming and evolution. I’m damn sure that the vast majority are not closed minded.
    For instance I believe in God. I just don’t like fundamentalists who use god as an excuse for their hatred or ignorance. I don’t think you’re a fundamentalist.


    In the future, I will simply provide links to this forum and it's 'learned faculty' of 'international experts' to anyone with any questions about the origins of species. Or, you know, anything else.


    Good Lord.
    Great. The people in this forum have spent a great deal of time looking things up. If they don’t know something they research it. It’s called learning.


    I’m sorry that we missed the point of your original comparison between I.D. and those who disagree with AWG. However, As i showed you previously it’s a terrible example. Hence why no-one connected the dots.

    There is no proof behind I.D. and it’s an entirely political movement.
    Vs.
    There is some proof that AWG is not true and that is being studied.

    Previously you accused me of not approaching things with an open mind. So I quoted myself from weeks prior.

    Let me repeat it:

    It is very possible that AWG is not true and there is evidence for that something that 99% most people who argue against AWG never bothered to look up. I have.

    However, I feel that relying on a "might" is extremely short sighted and dangerous. I will not sacrifice my future or my children future when I have determined the possible consequences of AWG to be true far outweigh the problems of a potential solution. Anything gained by hoping it's not are few and un-substantial.

    Can you do the same? Please do not accuse people of dogma when you yourself cannot claim an open mind nore have any factual knowledge on what you are talking about. An open mind means that you have considered that you are wrong and are willing to change it after research and information. I look forward to the day when you look for more information and stop relying on political opinion.

    Welcome to science. It doesn’t work well with politics.
    Last edited by Spector567; 03-24-2010 at 03:17 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
    If you are truly content with the actions of the climate 'experts' , I will be shocked.


    Why should we accord them the respect that scientists deserve when they do not conduct themselves as legitimate scientists do?

    Think I am the only one who thinks this?


    Talk about dogma...





    ,
    Do you think that all the scientists who disagree with you did not conduct themselves well??? You found a few. There have and are many who agree with your opinion who have done worse. You just haven't seen it published.

    Look up what the tobacco industry has in common with global warming.

    Honestly this massive global conspriacy involving hundreds of people is silly.

    You might want to read what people scientist really think.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    The rest of the so called u-turn interview that you never read.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    Do you think that all the scientists who disagree with you did not conduct themselves well??? You found a few. There have and are many who agree with your opinion who have done worse. You just haven't seen it published.

    Look up what the tobacco industry has in common with global warming.

    Honestly this massive global conspriacy involving hundreds of people is silly.

    You might want to read what people scientist really think.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    The rest of the so called u-turn interview that you never read.


    I invite you to peruse, at your leisure, all of the official responses to these criminal scientists.

    Dramatic damage was done by these liars and frauds, and many countries have had to make statements outlining the processes they will need to follow to re-interpret (or interpret) the data.

    Again, I don't care about it except for the stealing of the money(obamas next 'project'), but the attitude is certainly similar to the rage directed at believers for daring to question atheists.


    And, clearly, expressing doubt about certain evolution suppositions is not the same as claiming proof of Creationism.


    Again, compare the attitudes of atheists to the attitudes of Christians on this topic and you will see why we can safely call so many atheists 'dicks'.




    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

Similar Threads

  1. Darwin scam
    By Peninha in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-08-2014, 05:47 PM
  2. Darwin was an atheist!
    By Cnance in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 06-01-2010, 08:47 AM
  3. The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-23-2010, 09:44 AM
  4. Yo Gen. Bolden, was Darwin an astronomer, man?!
    By aguest in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-17-2010, 12:22 PM
  5. Darwin Award of the Day
    By nomlms4me in forum General Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-20-2008, 07:39 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •