Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Objective scientists...

In my Why should creationists bother with science?... I intentionally used the word possibly in my answer to the question: Is it a pipe dream to expect secular scientists to accept a well prepared creation model for testing? The reason for my caution is that while many scientists paint a picture of being open-minded to new ideas, if properly presented, they continue to get their feet tangled up in those mucky areas of bias and subjectivity. Now this is certainly not a problem unique to scientists - it pretty much affects the entire human race. It's just that when you read what these guys write you get the distinct impression that they consider themselves to be completely objective. Yet their own words paint a different picture. Consider that Joe Carter has a post titled, Darwin’s Silver Bullet: Connecting-the-Dots on “Common Descent”, which has elicited over 45 responses (so far). Yet a quick perusal of the comments from Evolutionists yields:
Someone above quote Phillip Johnson, who is a raving lunatic and knows diddly about evolutionary biology. _____ Sure. Whatever. You are entitled to your religious beliefs, Joe. It's the creationists who imply (or just come right out and say) that scientists are a bunch of Kool-Aid drinking fact-ignoring morons with a "materialist agenda" that are the problem. That makes about as much sense as flying airplanes into skyscapers because "that's what God wants." _____ Even on the many lines of evidence I can't personally verify and don't fully appreciate, guys like Steve Reuland, Ed Brayton, PZ Myers and many others involved in the issue and in the respective fields of science, have never, ever, lied to me-not once Joe-in any field of science I've checked up on. Every single creationist and IDCist I've ever checked up on has lied or distorted science in a major and unmistakable way. _____ And your last question is just another ID creationist joke, right puzzled? Seriously, puzzled, since you "predicted" the functions of so-called "junk" DNA, why don't YOU tell scientists how to determine whether a previously unknown DNA sequence was "designed" by an "intelligent" entity or not. I'm sure Phillip Johnson would be very proud of you if you could accomplish that because thus far his lackeys Behe and Dembski haven't been able to explain donkey doodoo.
Or click over to the comments at Pharyngula and the post, Creationist e-mail: Gary Luce thinks biology promotes Haeckel, where we read:
Joe: I read your article, and Rusty's. There's no there there. You're just whining that you can't comprehend the scientific literature, while Rusty is claiming that that clown Hugh Ross is a "scholar", building good scientific models. I'm happy to review any attempts to take a scientific approach to origins, as in Nelson's case, and I'm also willing to dismiss them when they fall so far short of their declared aspirations.
Do you see the need for the word possibly in my original post? P.S. scholar: 1) a learned person. Hugh Ross B.Sc. (1967) in Physics, University of British Columbia M.Sc. (1968) in Astronomy, University of Toronto Ph.D. (1973) in Astronomy, University of Toronto Yeah Paul, I can see why, in reference to Ross, you placed the word scholar in quotes... objective: 3) uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

No comments: