More Than 1,000 Ph.D. Scientists Are 'Skeptical' of Darwinian Evolution
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On the 210th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday, the Discovery Institute is going public with a list of more than 1,000 Ph.D. scientists who declared their skepticism toward Darwin's mechanism for evolution: natural selection acting on random mutation. This mechanism is the centerpiece of Neodarwinism, the current but eroding consensus on how evolution took place.
"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," the statement reads.
The Discovery Institute released a video of 19 scientists reading the statement.
"Our statement is not anti-evolution, it's on what is the mechanism," John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, told PJ Media on Monday. He said the list originated in 2001 "as a response to claims that were frequently parroted by the media that there are no scientists who raise questions about Darwinian theory."
The Discovery Institute found 100 Ph.D. scientists and published the list in The New York Review of Books. After a few years, "the pushback became really harsh; some of the people on the list lost funding, some were threatened with their jobs. We thought, 'We don't have to keep promoting this.' People kept signing anyway."
West insisted that the list "keeps growing on its own accord without our promotion." In fact, West told PJ Media that the Discovery Institute encouraged many professors not to sign, lest they lose their jobs. "There are people who want to sign and we tell them not to because they don't have tenure. It's not like we're begging people to sign," he said.
The list includes Ph.D. scientists from around the world. It includes a professor at Moscow State University in Russia. The list also includes a former president of Bangalore University in India, as well as many Ph.D. scientists who taught and studied at various prestigious American institutions like Harvard University, Duke University, and Johns Hopkins University.
"This is not to say the majority of scientists don't support Darwin's theory," West explained. But "the claims that there are no serious scientists that doubt Darwin, those are false."
"There are more than a thousand serious scientists who are willing to say there is an issue, that natural selection and random mutation do not explain the diversity of life," the Discovery Institute scholar said.
Many outlets might emphasize the fact that this statement does not disavow evolution per se. West said that is a virtue of the statement, however.
"Evolution is a real weasel word that means all sorts of things," he said. "If they mean small level changes within species, no one doubts that. If they mean a universal common ancestor, that's the majority of the scientific community. Our statement focuses on mechanisms."
"The standard theory going back to Darwin is natural selection or survival of the fittest acting on random mutations," West explained. "When the debate is over what mechanism can actually produce life, I would say that's a fundamental debate."
The mainstream media may insist that evolution is "settled science," but the debate over mechanisms is vital. "If people understand just how fundamental these debates about the mechanism are, that opens Pandora's Box," West said.
Importantly, not everyone on the list is a Christian, and the list has nothing to do with the theory of Intelligent Design.
Tellingly, the New York Times's Ken Chang ran an expose of the list in 2006 misleadingly entitled, "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition." As West reported later that year, "While Chang’s story conveys the clear impression that scientists who support Discovery’s Dissent from Darwinstatement are motivated by religion rather than science, Chang has now admitted in an interview that 75% or more of the scientists he interviewed did not fit this description" (emphasis original).
In two weeks, biochemist Michael Behe (one of the signatories on the list) will release a new book, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution. The pre-eminent magazine Science ran an article attacking the forthcoming book, but the article did not address the book's key arguments, West claimed. Behe himself responded to the Science article, noting that evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski had no response to his arguments.
"I used to believe Darwin’s theory got it right about most of life, but as science learned more about the molecular and cellular levels of biology I broke ranks," Behe told PJ Media. "My new book, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution, shows readers why new research gives those thousand scientists much more reason to be skeptical."
Americans need to understand that there is a real debate about key aspects of Darwin's theory of evolution, and that dissent is not merely a religious position, but a scientific one.
“"There are more than a thousand serious scientists who are willing to say there is an issue, that natural selection and random mutation do not explain the diversity of life," the Discovery Institute scholar said.
Many outlets might emphasize the fact that this statement does not disavow evolution per se. West said that is a virtue of the statement, however.
"Evolution is a real weasel word that means all sorts of things," he said. "If they mean small level changes within species, no one doubts that. If they mean a universal common ancestor, that's the majority of the scientific community. Our statement focuses on mechanisms."
"The standard theory going back to Darwin is natural selection or survival of the fittest acting on random mutations," West explained. "When the debate is over what mechanism can actually produce life, I would say that's a fundamental debate."
The mainstream media may insist that evolution is "settled science," but the debate over mechanisms is vital. "If people understand just how fundamental these debates about the mechanism are, that opens Pandora's Box," West said.
Importantly, not everyone on the list is a Christian, and the list has nothing to do with the theory of Intelligent Design.”
Iintelligent Design is not a theory. Please learn something about science if you're going to discuss it.
[Deleted]
Evolution is a scientific theory; intelligent design is not. It is a theory in the generic sense, but that has nothing to do with science. Anyone can have a generic theory that makes no sense and hasn't been tested or proven. I could have a theory that the moon is made of green cheese.
Quit trying to pass pseudoscience off as science, and there will be no need to be condescending.
You label evolution - the foundation of modern biology - as 'pseudoscience' and then label the nonsense of YEC as genuine science. I have no sympathy for the backlash that brings. It is a profoundly stupid declaration that flies in the face of extremely high quality and time-tested evidence and illustrates a desire to believe something rather than an honest, objective search for truth.
some people can only learn what their religious leaders indoctrinate into them.
And reject anything which contradicts their beliefs.
I came late to this discussion, but I would be very interested to see a breakdown of the fields of study of the alleged 1,000 scientists. I certainly did not see that mentioned anywhere.
Natural selection vs random selection.....
Survival of the fittest versus random mutation.....
Debates that have been taking place under the surface of Evolution since the discovery of the primordial soup was first recreated (and since repeated multiple times) by Miller.... The search for how DNA, (the first self reproducing molecule) actually produces itself in the first place is the source of much speculation.
Evolution from the ideal of creation is a scientifically proven fact, the question becomes HOW..... and from how, WHY?
Darwin's theory is a proposition of but one way evolution is theorized to take place and many, many scientists do not go along with it......
Speciation: The Origin of New Species From the Knowledge Project, Is a very good in-depth treatise on current scientific thought on the subject....
It reveals that the current line of reasoning has been drifting away from Darwin's theory as an absolute and that for many years investigation has been ongoing in the areas that Darwin doesn't cover or explore at all...... Randomness, how does DNA recombines into a new species, how some species just "appear" rather than "evolve".
The scientific fact is DNA "creates" itself in the proper environment. Science has been able, for many decades since Miller, to "create" DNA, albeit small 10 to 15 segment strands that have no real patterns to them but do recreate themselves.......
The main driving force of evolutionary studies is in the mundane, how does DNA (like human DNA, or any advanced DNA) actually develop? It isn't as flashy as the theoretical ideals that attempt to explain everything in one declaration. (like Darwin's particular ideals) but how the building blocks of life actually work.
Darwin's work requires one to accept that there is a link, that matches current life to past life. Every thing is an evolution from something before. Which lead to the common form of scientific exploration in this area, "Find the link, prove the theory".... "missing Link ideology" without being able, after many many decades of searching and not finding what the theory states MUST be there...... Scientists started looking elsewhere for the explanations that Darwin's theories do not cover.
There are many holes to this readily available, (and easily teachable) theory to shows the theory is not full-proof. This fact in and of itself proves that absolutist Darwinian theory is wrong. It doesn't explain how some species just "appear" without any link to any past molecular formulation.....
Yet we have those that claim to be of the scientific bent that reject all ideals of molecular diversity creation except for the natural selection process outlined by Darwin.
To me, they need to go back and get on board the elemental train, cause they are losing their way. (50 years too late)......
Rejecting Darwin as the foundational basis for evolution is not only becoming the scientific mainstream, it is proving to be the only road that advances the science.........
Darwin was wrong about pangenesis. We've learned a lot more about evolution than we knew back in his day ... and will probably always keep learning more. That's what makes science so fascinating!
With the continuing advance of modern biological technology, the evidence that unguided evolution can account for all the diversity of living things is unraveling. With his third book in just over 20 years, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe continues the discussion he began with Darwin’s Black Box (1996) and The Edge of Evolution (2007). In this new book, entitled Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution , the author discusses the problems that “blind watchmaker” evolution faces, the various theories that are being proposed to rescue Darwinian evolution, the data we can now get from the DNA, and a proposed solution.
A major theme of this book—which I have never before seen expressed—is that “Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which counterintuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully de volutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information. Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting. That is, the very same factors that promote diversity at the simplest levels of biology [also] actively prevent it at more complex [levels]. Darwin’s mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain ” (37-38).
In this book of ten chapters and about 300 pages, the author begins with the problems facing Darwinian evolution. He reminds us that the theory pretends to knowledge that we do not have: namely, that its mechanism (random mutation and natural selection) is adequate to be able to generate the complexity, functionality and diversity that we see in present-day living things, all starting from one or a few initial life forms. Behe concedes that this Darwinian mechanism is capable of generating low levels of diversity, such as characterize the bottom levels of the biological classification scheme—the diversity found within genera and species. But since we are now able to unpack and study the DNA of living organisms, we can finally tell something of what is happening when mutation and natural selection do their work, thus testing the Darwinian mechanism.
I've never been quite able to understand what the "Christian" objection to evolution actually is. God could certainly have worked His will through the mechanism of evolution and the special nature of human beings would still be applicable. Animals are not capable of self-reflection or self-consciousness, or means of expressing these abilities , the way human beings are. Obviously we are a "specially" developed species. Why not attribute that to the workings of "God", and let go the story book assertions associated with taking the Old Testament literally? The Bible cannot be read as literal history of events. Period. That realization does not preclude belief in God.
My mom considers evolution to be God's tool. But then, she's not a literalist or a young earther, as C4P is. Many Christian sects accept science just fine.
I get that. What I don't get is WHY they feel compelled to cling to a literal old testament. It is not necessary for belief in Christianity. And it makes them look dumb/gullible.
Several major christian denominations have no particular objection to evolution and I'm not sure why they would. The Bible isn't really intended as a science text and I think most churches are not really in the business of giving science lessons on Sunday. As for me, I'm a christian and I have no problem with evolution. I know some evangelicals who do, though.
For everyone's edification:
For a literalist, it's both a science text (bats are birds, who knew?) and a history text. Which means humans never had a hunter-gatherer stage, for example.
The young earth creationists took it further; it's a fad dating from the 1800s. I think they added up all the begets (as if someone could really have lived to be 400 when the average lifespan was probably in the late 20s) and consider the lineage described in the bible to be unbroken. Which obviously makes no sense, humans were around for a long time before got into agriculture and cities and such.
My sister turned into a young earther. My mom (Episcopal) honestly doesn't understand why it even matters so much to them to believe this - it's not like their faith is any stronger than that of an old-earth creationist, or than someone who accepts evolution. And it must take so much mental effort to totally discount geology and the other sciences.
My next door neighbor is also a young earther. It was a little strange when she was showing me her photos from Ireland, and the megalith has a caption about how it was 6000 years old. I wanted to ask her how she thought people from the Middle East could have gotten to Ireland so quickly and built so many things - but didn't bother.
Yeah but bats don't lay eggs and birds don't have nipples
And maybe 400 years is more like 400 months (that would be approx 33 years).
Methusalah lived to the ripe old age of 900 years or 900 months or 75 years? You decide
Neither do playpus
For some Christians it flies in the face of man being directly created by God. But I suspect most Christians accept evolution nowadays.
For Young Earth Creationists the problem is simple - they are biblical literalists. It is impossible to reconcile YEC beliefs with evolution. That is why the likes of Ken Ham are engaging in an all-out war with evolutionary sciences. For them, it is necessary for their survival.
Why does it always come back to n....
lol
[deleted]
(and self correcting)
.....Darwin's legacy is anti-science.
"Darwin's theory has fueled fanaticism and intolerance in the name of science that is antithetical to genuine science," John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and author of The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society , told PJ Media in an email statement. West characterized Darwin's legacy in the field of science as mostly "a dead end."
"Accidental mutations don't produce new animals. They degrade existing organisms," West declared. "The bottom line is that Darwin's unguided mechanism is incapable of producing the large-scale changes he was purporting to explain." West pointed to the late National Academy of Sciences Member Phil Skell's article in The Scientist , which argued that most of the major scientific discoveries during the past century owe little or nothing to Darwin's theory.
West pointed to two examples of human biology where Darwin's theory has gone awry: the appendix, long considered a useless "vestigial" organ which scientists recently discovered to be important; and "junk" DNA in the human genome, which does not code for any protein but also fulfills vital functions.
But it gets worse. "Darwin's theory was so infused with ideological zeal from the very beginning that it has hurt genuine scientific inquiry by turning the discussion over origins into more of an ideological litmus test than an open-minded search for the truth," West argued. In this way, "Darwin's theory has also served as a science-stopper." .....
"The Discovery Institute (DI, not in any way associated with the Discovery Channel) is a non-profit religious "think" tank notorious famous for its attempts to get intelligent design creationism taught in American schools. It has set out many of its goals in the Wedge Document " - From RationalWiki.
Just a bunch of religious fanatics trying to get their myths into our schools by pretending they're science. What a bunch of schlock.
Jeff, in all sincerity, you DO NOT WANT ME ON THIS ARTICLE!
I've said my piece, and that's all I'm going to say.
Your on your own for the rest.....
My God has no opinion on Evolution.....
My point above wasn’t about which views on origins is right or even the seeded articles issues regarding the mechanics of evolution. It was about the intolerant bigotry of the so called pro science devotees of Darwin above all and a clear anti God bias in them having nothing to do with just origins issues. The people who self label as pro science are anything but, and I reject them and every principle that they stand for. We are all pro science. Science is so much more than only about origins. Many scientists have never believed a certain way about origins and yet excelled in their scientific fields. It is the doctrinaire intolerance of dissent and expanded study that would cause loss of jobs or funding or viewpoints censored that must be resisted come what may. What I quoted above from PJ is accurate about too many self styled so called pro science people.
And by making this specific point you are making it about god and not the science.
It's why I responded the way I did. I was trying to give you a science way out when others were calling it out about religion....
And then you make it about Anti-God.....
I can't and won't support that.... God gave us a brain and expects us to use it.....
Science is not anti-god..... If it was, then how come he allows people to invent things that makes work easier? Applied science....
So my god has no opinion on evolution.... And I will never take King James's approved christian ideals as absolute truth......
On that, we are going to have to differ.
I cannot support your position....
You're doing a pretty good job of proving that theory
By the way, you really need to investigate the 1,000 "scientists you posted about. Don't think they have standing to comment
Science is not anti God. People who call themselves pro science and label dissent as pseudoscience are exactly that.
Investigate what exactly? What standing do they need to warrant permission to comment?
Do you know that the majority of them are not qualified in a field that has anything to do with Darwinism or any other field of factual science.
Hmm, 1,000 out of the estimated 7 MIllion in the world.....This is a big nothing burger, let me know when these 1,000 can convince at least 1 Million of the 7. Then i might get interested.
PJ Media was right to bring all this vital important information to our attention.
My guess is that a young earth creationist couldn't possibly accept either of those. And forget about Pangaea. Geology in general, really, since it proves the Earth is billions of years old.
No one, not even the Genesis account of origins would deny that the foundations of the earth could be that old.
You told me my sister was right when I said she is a young earth creationist and believes that the earth is only 6000 years old. So, are you saying you're not a young earth creationist after all?
Reread Genesis 1 sometime. What was there in the beginning? What was light created around? What then did the atmosphere surround? On day three what did the dry land and all the plants and trees and grasses upon it come out of? The light of Gods presence sustains life but God did not likely stay here to provide that light before on day four he created the rest of our solar system including importantly the moon to orbit the earth and the sun to light and warm it. God did day three and four in the order he did so that we would believe His claim to be our creator or call Him a liar and thus not believe anything he has to say on any subject. Jesus claimed to be the Creator when he walked on the earth and He never sinned....That said, creation basically terraformed the lifeless core, rocks, and water that was already here that was likely here from a very early to us period of the endless ages of an eternity of creation. The great flood was a cataclysmic event that changed the very nature of the earth, it’s ritation, it’s atmosphere and waters and the geographical topography. The earth could well have been Pangea before the flood and rocks from the crust of the earth could be billions of years old.
The moon was most likely created when the Earth collided with another large mass. The flood myth was plagiarized from the Gilgamesh story.
As to the rest .... hahahahaha.
First, how on Earth could you possibly know this?
Second, if God wants everyone to believe His claim to be our creator He has quite a few more convincing options than to write stories in an ancient errant book.
How can that happen when so many conservatives believe in a flat earth
Where is your proof Wally. You make this wild assurations and nery a flake of fact
Wally isn't religious. He accepts science. (not meant as an insult to the majority of Christians who also accept science)
At least we both know what we each think of the others position on these issues.
Christians broadly accept science. We do not accept Darwin’s fraud nor some so called pro science people’s position of making science their god in place of the real One.
By ' we ' you are not speaking for Christians in general. Better to be clear and note that by ' we ' you are referring to Young Earth Creationists.
Christians generally do accept evolution: Pew Research, 2018
Above is the single question of the survey and the double question of the survey. Here are the results:
I will leave it up to you to read these charts and learn something about Christian beliefs regarding evolution.
Young Earth Creationists are a highly vocal fringe minority of Christians who flat out deny evolution of species. They are the primary force behind trying to misinform people about evolution.
Young Earth Creationists disinform people regarding science - all to preserve a literal interpretation of the Bible. Not very admirable.
Sorry Don, it's accepted astronomy. In general the moon gets about 4 cm further away from us every year but it will be a billion years before there is a negative affect
on earth, which may spin faster and faster without the moon's drag.
Only time will tell.
So ... you don't accept science. Got it. Because science proves that many of the biblical stories never happened, and challenges the faith of the literalists. Just as the Liberty Institute cites as one of its reasons for its propaganda efforts in its Wedge Document.
Since I'm now 65 and likely don't have a few more million/billion years to live, I'll just worry about short term problems that I might be able to help deal with in the next few years such as AGW.
Wally is not wrong Don. According to Space :
Also, according to NASA : "...the moon is slowly moving away from Earth by about 1-1/2 inches (4 centimeters) per year..."
Very wide ranging bs.
Time to back out of discussion here, it is rapidly devolving itself into the same old tired evolution vs intelligent design (science vs religion) crap that is all too prevalent nowadays
lol....chicken
That question will never be answered satisfactorily for anyone
Gotta go with the egg or rather what was inside the egg (the first chicken). The critter that laid the egg would have been close to being a chicken, just not quite there, for lack of a better term I would call it a proto-chicken.
The picture I saw showed the egg with a satisfied smile in bed, while the chicken looked disgruntled. So I think there is a clear answer.
Never seen an egg smile. My guess is that it was some sort of a lame genetic bartender. Shit tends to happen with solar insolation. Evolutional changes due to irradiation (and other environmental factors) is reality. Always has been and always will be. Seems mankind is now superseding orbital Milankovitch cycles. In fact, our pollution is blowing right through what used to be natural cycles.
Screw all idiots who deny anthropogenic damage to our only planet.
Don't believe in either/or scenarios. Life is not all black or white. Shit happens.
Obviously a few cells got together and eventually became a chicken or an egg after a few million years.
A biologist would say that the egg had to develop first from earlier chicken prototypes. Evolution.
Which, from what I know about the rules here, means they were BS sources.
Actually they were from plainly American mainstream sources.
Intelligent design is pseudoscience, and the creation myth is just that ... a myth. You clearly don't understand science if you think admitting we don't know everything there is to know about evolution somehow discredits it as a theory. Major fail in your attempt here. Since you're a young earth creationist, I realize you don't understand science - but this is laughable.
I’m not the issue. The issue is the actual content of the seeded article. Please stay on topic or leave the seed.
Science is a vast field of many disciplines and studies. Almost all of us are in favor of science and expanding knowledge. To those who would segregate science based on devotion to Darwin or denial of God and call those in any field of scientific endeavors who don’t deny faith or bow down to Darwin I have nothing but the sheerest form of contempt for their simple minded arrogance and mock their use of labeling to content control or censor the views of others. The term Pro science in the context of its use here is nothing but pro censorship.
Nobody who posts crap from the Discovery Institute is in favor of science. They're only interested in warping the definition of science to pretend their myths have validity, and to try to push them into the public arena. Their Wedge Document proves that.
Yeah, we know. You have nothing but arrogance and sheer contempt for facts and science, because facts and science make it clear that the bible cannot be taken literally [deleted] You've made that perfectly clear.
Actually, since all you have seeded since the NV days has been far right wing lying propaganda, you can't say that any of your seeds aren't about fossil fuel industry, Heartland Institute/Heritage foundation lies.
How is that keeping/making America great?
Seems all you have ever done here and back on the vine is seed fascist fantasies.
Thankfully, all biologists question Darwin and have built upon his genius.
Darwin is the basis of all empirical biological sciences concerning evolution and biological reality.
All modern biological sciences are based on Darwin's observations.
Glad I am not a science denier.
What the fanatics at the Liberty Institute don't understand is that to rational people, the idea of questioning science, trying to prove it wrong, constantly learning as new evidence arises - that's what makes science so awesome! Evolution is established. We still have much to learn about it, just as with astronomy and all science. But the premise is clear.
Rather than clinging to 2000 year old myths regardless of what new information we have found. Stagnate, fight change, discriminate rather than emulate Jesus, hate others because you fear their knowledge or differences, act like the barbarians humanity used to be .. ugh. How sad a life that must be. Never evolving mentally.
The fact that this is even a thing is kind of sad. Skepticism or criticism in science should never be grounds for losing your job.
That is the point of it. The complete sheer biased hate filled bigotry of the advocates of those who self describe as so called pro science. There are no more intolerant bigoted people on the face of the earth. It’s like they are the new McCarthyists, blacklisting all who deviate from their personal dogma.
How can you expect anyone to take something you post from the Discovery Institute seriously, when we know what their agenda is? After their Wedge Document was leaked, there is no denying it. Why should anyone be tolerant of their attempts to push their dogma as science? They are anti-science.
No they are not anti science. A lot of science happens there. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive as the bigots who self label as pro science and label others as pseudoscience would have us believe. There are many fields of science having nothing to do with human or earth origins where plenty of people you all falsely label as pseudoscientists who advance human knowledge in many areas and fields of study. To deny that they are scientists or to claim that their fields of study are pseudoscience because they don’t agree on origins and or believe in God is the new McCarthyism. Lastly, I didn’t seed any article from the science group you mention or their news magazine. I seeded the article from PJ media which is an acceptable source according to our board of censors.
Yes they are.
Then you explain the mechanical issues with evolution that the seeded article describes.
The whole fricking article was about the Discovery Institute and what its fake scholar said. And it's not a science group; it's whackjob religious propaganda group whose sole mission is to discredit evolution and put their myths in its place.
Actually the article was an annual response to the birthdate of the fake theorist Charles Darwin and the fraud he has perpetrated upon the whole world. It was/is a discussion about mechanical problems with a portion of said theory.
So it's an article written by fake theorists decrying an alleged fake theorist. Got ya.
It was a blatant and stupid attempt to discredit evolution, in keeping with the Discovery Institute's plan to have ID permeate every branch of science and be taken as science itself.
The fact that Darwin's birthday sets these idiots off every year on his birthdate has no relevance to the issue.
Evolution is NOT fraud, but obviously the Discovery Institute's attempt at actual fraud is working on some people.
I think it is more the YEC belief. YEC's biggest initiative is the (ultimately futile) attempt to discredit evolution because it flat out contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution directly contradicts their beliefs, but instead of adjusting their absurd beliefs of a young Earth based on modern knowledge, they attempt to misinform and disinform millions of people by casting the evolutionary sciences as pseudo-science.
This deliberate (and ultimately futile) act of purposely dumbing down people is repugnant. Anyone who pushes this nonsense should be harshly challenged.
That Wedge Document certainly was an eye-opener. I suppose I should thank MAG for leading me to find it and read it. Could you imagine the impact on, say, medicine, if this actually came to pass:
"To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts."
The religious fanatics at the Liberty Institute are truly dangerous.
But your searching and curiosity is antithetic to Xx's agenda.
READ my propaganda. Don't question, just drink the kool aid. Ignore the man behind the curtain.
Reminds me of Dune......not for it's accuracy but for it's religious fanaticisms . . . . .
I don't think he expected anyone to catch on to what he was trying to do here.
Sand! I wonder what that would have actually been like.
We should always expect the one trick pony to have the same underlying agenda.
Because he thinks we're stupid.
PJ media which is an acceptable source according to our board of censors
And what is this board and who is it? PJ has never been accepted as any more that a right wing rag
Actually it should be. Screw all science deniers who deny scientific reality due to fossil fuel money.
Scientists hold to a higher standard of truth than paid science deniers and far right wing propagandists.
You are very wrong. And very unscience.
Very unscience?
please explain why you feel that someone who accepts science is "very unscience" as compared to the charlatans at the Liberty Institute.
I think I'll take that as a compliment considering the source.
It’s time to get some more material from real scientists at the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
Liberty Institute? You mean this?
The so called self proclaimed pro science gang are the new heirs of Mc Carthyism...
Neither the Heartland institute nor the Heritage foundation deal with science.
Far right wing propaganda is what they do.
By the way, Heartland and Heritage said cigarettes are good for you. Because they were paid to.
SUMMARY AUDIT: EXECUTIVE BRANCH WEBSITES PROMOTING GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM AND PROPAGANDA
Federal agency websites should only contain scientific facts about climate change, not left-wing propaganda. This means numerous existing websites must be corrected to reflect climate realism or taken down altogether.
In multiple federal agencies, political operatives posing as civil servants continue to propagate numerous global warming myths and alarmist claims, even though President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he and his administration are committed to promoting climate realism.
Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish
The mission of The Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
1
Effective Research — Provide timely, accurate research on key policy issues
2
Superb Communications — Effectively market our findings to primary audiences
3
Proven Solutions — Pursue conservative policies to help Americans build a better life
Free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense—promoting these principles is the mission of The Heritage Foundation, which we fight for every single day.
As the nation’s largest, most broadly-supported conservative research and educational institution—a think tank—The Heritage Foundation has been the bastion of the American conservative movement since our founding in 1973. More than 500,000 dues-paying members support our vision to build an America where freedom, prosperity, opportunity and civil society flourish.
We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.
Heritage’s staff pursues this mission by performing timely, accurate research on key policy issues and effectively marketing these findings to our primary audiences: members of Congress, key congressional staff members, policymakers in the executive branch, the nation’s news media, and the academic and policy communities.
Wow. Thanks for the typo find. It's all you could cone up with? Lol.
The source is a real scientist rather than an ignorant hack. [Removed]
Nice deflection.
[deleted]
How is 'unscience' a typo?
Well perhaps if you addressed her question there would be MORE.
I prefer actual recognized and credible scientific organizations like NASA and the National Academy of Sciences.
But ... they're actual scientists, not religious fanatics, so they aren't going to say what he wants to believe.
Oh silly me. I sometimes forget some people think their beliefs override actual science and facts.
Two more highly right wing rags pron to misrepresentation and out right bs
A total lie made up to spur the right wing
You post more and more like it's coming from a script. May I ask who supplied the script?
There is no hope for those who simply look for ways to support a belief rather than form a belief based upon quality evidence. No hope.
KAG, you post a seed that, in effect, claims 0.014% of world scientists are skeptical about 'random' processes fully explaining the complexity of life.
This seed then effectively suggests that possibly upwards of 99.986% of worldwide scientists are NOT skeptical about 'random' processes fully explaining the complexity of life.
Your argumentum ad populum fails due to being fallacious and also fails in terms of its (utter lack of) logic.
But what is really important is to understand what science is and what it is not. Science is not about consensus. It is about evidence, logic and falsification. Even though the super, super majority of scientists worldwide accept evolution as the best explanation for the complexity of life, it really does not matter what they think. What matters is the mountains of evidence that supports the theory and the fact that the theory persists (and strengthens) in spite of continuing efforts to expose its flaws (by 'skeptics' as well as advocates).
And most of those millions of scientists devote their life work to many fields of study out there having nothing to do with earth or human origins who are never asked what they think of it because it has less than zero to do with what they are studying, researching, inventing, or doing. It would be nothing but shortsighted intolerant bigotry to condition their work opportunities, funding, or research on some oath of fealty to Darwin or to renounce that angels or even God exist. Dr. Ben Carson in his career was a cutting edge pioneer in the expansion of his field having to do with the human brain and yet he is both a young earth creationist and a devout Christian. Is or was he a pseudoscientist? This whole so called pro science pseudoscience divide as stated is in reality nothing short of intolerant bigotry and those who would censor based on that no better than Joe McCarthy.
Okay. Find a survey of working scientists in evolutionary biology and let's see what percentage of them deny the foundation of the science they study.
Illustrates that intelligence is sometimes no match for indoctrination. Also, Dr. Carson is not an evolutionary scientist - he was a brain surgeon. Given you want to exclude all those who are not directly working in the field, your example of Dr. Carson contradicts your new rule. Finally, anecdotes are pointless. Go by the evidence, not what human beings believe.
Yes I’m saying that as God exists so too do his angels that are as described in the Bible. The oath I refer to is the one that so called pro science people take to take the word of Darwin over the word of God and try to get people in all scientific fields to accept Darwin over God even though their fields of work and study has nothing to do with origins.
In reality it is take the demonstrated scientific findings based on over 150 years of research and mountains of evidence over unevidenced and demonstrably errant words that were written and rewritten for thousands of years by many ancient men and whose 'original' sources are largely lost to time.
Ben Carson also believes that OT Joseph built the Giza pyramids as grain stores, like silos.
Now as nutty as that sounds, it's even worse, because the pyramids were centuries old by then.....
All I needed to know about Dr. Carson was his YEC beliefs. One who can operate at that level of willful ignorance is not someone I would want to see in a position of power. Alas ...
And yet those needing pioneering brain surgery and the cutting edge methods for it would rely on him for that regardless of his YEC beliefs or what they thought of them. And they wouldn’t care that he’s a member of a church that is as strongly pro creation now as it was at its beginning. Also other fine churches that were not listed above are stil pro creation. And yet in his position he is improving the lives of people with policies of opportunity zones for job creation and capital investment and increased education and employment opportunities.
Yes, that is true. He was (it would seem) a brilliant surgeon. What about my comment confused you? Put it this way, as a surgeon he had a track record that one could use to judge his ability as a surgeon. As a member of the President's cabinet, that is an entirely different situation. YEC beliefs related to a 6,000 year old Earth are IMO utter nonsense and for me that brings his general judgment into question.
Young Earth Creationism is different from Old Earth Creationism. The former aggressively disinforms people about evolution.
Who said anything about it being a society or secret? I proudly stand with what is referred to by our board of censors as a devout practitioner of pseudoscience and advocate for it openly and make no apologies for it. I am a creationist and always will be. I am in my conservative political, evangelical religious, and pro angel, pro creation, anti man caused climate change science viewpoints absolutely everything that is discouraged here. We’re all my personal view points put in written articles and commentary on a web site, that website would be considered questionable and pseudoscience and strictly due to the SPLC hate as well. I am a traditional economic and national security conservative but I do carry some libertarian and more social conservative views too. The ultimate thing is that secular conservatives could achieve none of our shared economic and defense and populist goals without the suport of us Christian conservatives. The social conservatives, national defense conservatives, economic and tax conservatives, and libertarian hybrid conservatives are four legs of the table of conservatives and it won’t stay standing unless all four stand together. United we stand, divided we fall.
And what you just did with this line of diatribe? is divide all republicans into the same little constituencies that the democrats are famous for....
But that belies the roots of the evangelicals doesn't it. I've always held that Reagan made one of the hugest mistakes of any politician in american history when he invited you all into my beloved Republican party....
The Republican party was one unified party until you guys joined after getting your asses handed to you by the democrats in '68....
Why don't you take your divisiveness and go back to where you belong! I hear they love divisiveness over there......
We don't need you.... conservatism doesn't need you..... libertarianism doesn't need you..... You really don't know what those terms actually mean anyway.
AND, according to you, the democrats could use a goodly dose of relativistic moralism. Why don't you take your brand of evangelicalism, heed your divine calling, and go save them...... you know they say that the soul isn't worth spit without a little exercise, over there you will get all the moral exercise you need and then some......
Stop hiding out on this side....... all your showing us it that your afraid of facing the truth..... and all your capable of is stirring the pot......
Religion has no place in politics..... Leave us the hell alone for a change....
Go start your own friggen party....
And was far more palatable to independents, as well. As well as actually standing for smaller government.
Hey! Quit that!
Besides...it's too late for me
As it is for them.
The very concept of conservatives equating their current agenda with moralism is laughable. The fact that Evangelicals overwhelming supported Trump belies their claim to biblically based values.
They deserve each other and after an almost 40 year marriage, there is NO divorcing them.
Reagan's embrace of the 'Moral Majority' is what made him POTUS. The hold the 'Moral Majority' had on the GOP died with Reagan's Presidency. Yet the malady was malignant and chronic.
What we have in today's GOP is self emulation. Dick Armey and his minions created the illusion of the Tea Party and along with the Kochs, used loyalty oaths to eliminate a goodly portion of the moderates in the Republican Party. Instead of fighting for their values, your beloved Republican Party chose cowardice, punted and sold their soul. The 'Freedom Caucus' in the House is one of the results and rabid idiots like Rep. Johnson and Meadows are still with us and sit at Trump's right hand.
All of the organizations championed by Xx are regular visitors to Trump's WH and Jared seeks their counsel in almost everything he does.
I’m both.
I was a national defense and economic conservative before Reagan became President. I became more religious oriented after the evangelicals joined our party. Without them, I believe that Nixon would have been our last President, that no Republican house leader would have exceeded what Bob Michael did as minority leader. I doubt that we would have won the senate in 1980 or 1994 or 2014 without the infusion of evangelical support. Trump and both Bushes wouldn’t have won either. We’d not have had a defense build up or significant tax cuts. The GOP is a big tent party and it’s time to reach out to All people of all races,religions, both genders to our party. It’s also time for the base of the party to complete the overthrow of the establishment in the RNC and the senate. Reagan ran against the GOP establishment then and it’s right to do so now.
One cannot be both a Young Earth Creationist and an Old Earth Creationist.
That merely proves that don't know the difference.
/facepalm
As I understand it, he has a warped understanding of geology where he accepts that the "foundations" of the earth could be very old - the "old earth creationist" part - but that humans have only been around for 6000 years old - the "young earth creationist" part. Except that has nothing to with the age of the earth, even though it's just as ridiculous.
Fascinating stuff. Then his is a complete misunderstanding of Young Earth Creationism. YECs are biblical literalists who hold (per Archbishop Ussher's analysis) that the Earth (and, indeed, the universe) is < 10,000 years old.
One should not self-label as YEC if one does not comprehend the meaning of YEC.
If you supported Nixon, then you cannot by rule be a Reagan republican much less a Reagan democrat.....
Reagan returned the republican party to it's roots...... which sure as heck wasn't biblical at all.
I worked with the man I know what he believed. He would be the first to tell you that religion has no place in politics.
Run that crap on someone else....
Sheesh, here we go again...
Then why the hell did he throw religion around every fucking chance he got? Come on man, City on the Hill and Evil Empire were bible thumping at it's worst.
I didn’t support Nixon. I was an infant when he lost to Kennedy and 8 when he beat Humphrey whom I later liked. When I was 12 I was a young volunteer for the George McGovern campaign and led the debate for him in school and put up the McGovern bulletin board in class next to the Nixon one. I was raised democrat and thought I’d be one. I rejoiced at Nixon’s resignation and the 1974 wipe out. In 76 I was initially all in for Scoop Jackson. In the time between those elections I began listening to radio commentary on the radio before walking to school. It was Ronald Reagan and I wanted to know what the enemy was thinking. As I listened what he said made sense and much more than McGovern or Nixon had. When he ran I followed him too. As Carter dominated I concentrated on Reagan’s competitive race and listened to his campaigns and read about him and went all in for him as he won me over. After his crushing loss to Ford, I returned to my party and Carter. I remember the posters of him in a beard and the caption of JC, he will save us. I had still have friends who were for Ford despite what happened to Reagan. When Carter promised to kill the MX missile and B-1 bomber I disavowed all past support for him and joined my friends as a youth for Ford the last 6 weeks. As the democrats gave Carter grief for his beliefs and the watergate babies were emerging so different from the kind of democrats I grew up with and republicans were coming up with enterprise zones and tax cuts as well as values and strong defense along with Howard Jarvis and prop 13 when it came time to register to vote I registered Republican and have been ever since not missing a single election and being a volunteer in almost all of them. My first vote was for proposition 13. And you want me and other Reagan Democrats who became Republican to leave? The democrats that are like I was are the ones from blue wall states that Obama in 12 and Clinton in 16 turned their backs on. In 1978 to 1980 the democrats did the same to me in their hard left turn that actually began as you mentioned in 1968.
See here is where you lose it. Reagan didn't lose to Jerry Ford, Reagan had enough electors to make it very difficult for Ford....
And the Party didn't want a nomination fight as that would hurt Ford's chances, (one must remember Ford didn't have the advantage of being a true incumbent president) he was never elected. This is part of what cause a very close convention fight. along with some of Ford's positions on international agreements. Reagan tried to get the rules changed to force Ford to name a running mate before the votes, it was a close vote but Reagan lost. But the move angered the hard liners who moved to Ford's side....
They offered, (behind the scenes) the vice presidents slot but Reagan refused it cause he didn't want to be part of what he saw as a losing ticket. So to swing the more moderate Reaganites (like me) towards Ford they gave him the keynote speaker spot at the convention, he accepted that.....
After the first vote was cast, Reagan conceded, which shocked everyone expecting a long hard floor fight and sat back to start planning for the next cycle almost immediately after the convention....
He wasn't crushed, that convention made Reagan, almost guaranteeing that he would be the next republican nominated for President....
I was there, I was involved, you know absolutely nothing.... Ford represented the last stand of the establishment.
Give it up...
He was definitely a religious man no question, and when speechifying, he could throw it around better than most. "Bible Thumper" not hardly.
He lived and breathed the constitution, his view was religion makes the man, not the government....
I can tell ya this, you didn't want to be viewed by him as an enemy..... He didn't have many, but those he did have rued the day they got on his wrong side...
Well it was a crushing loss for me at the time as a 16 year old. After Reagan left office the establishment took back the controls of the party often ignoring the base right up until the Tea Party came to be. It was as much anti GOP establishment as it was anti Obamacare. I just wished Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, or even the bridge builder Rubio won the support of the party base then. Trump is doing better than I thought or hoped. Did it matter to you that in the general election Trump got 81% of our vote or that 7 million who voted 2x for Obama voted for Trump?
The "Moral Majority" had nothing to do with Reagan, it cost Bush his re-election and lead to Newt the toot, and his ballroom dance with Clinton.
You remember Newt's signature "Contract with America" to pull the evangelicals to support him? That was the trumpet sound of the quote "Moral Majority".
Long after Reagan was gone....
When Reagan was president, Newt was relegated to the back of the republican bus, he detested the man cause he didn't have one ounce of morality in him....
Reagan actually got it right on separation of church and state as he saw it and on using religious references in speeches and proclamations. He was pro life and pro 2A as I was when I thought I was a democrat and to present. I doubt he ever believed we came from monkeys instead of being Gods creation.
The last election was a vote AGAINST Hillary, it wasn't a vote FOR T-rump.....
Whatever we get out of T-rumps presidency is pure gold, a gift of the electorate, cause he shouldn't have won.... We can thank the democrats that shafted Bernie for T-rump's presidency....
You keep flappin and demonstrating how much you do not know....
Carry on, your only embarrassing yourself....
The moral majority faded when Falwell began having doubts about being so involved in politics. Some followed that lead including Cal Thomas and others then created the Christian coalition that Robertson led. Now it has little power either.
I don’t suppose I can call it a gift of or from God? I sure thanked Him for it as I didn’t at all expect it. I agree it’s pure gold and the courts will be shaped by it for a couple of decades. Our taxes and strong national economy and defense as well. Why you would want me who likely generally agrees with you on secular security, defense and on general economic matters to leave the party because I express and have religious beliefs is beyond me.
Wow NWM, that's right up there with your most ridiculous.
And a thumper of convenience...
Reagan was pro 2A for white people. When faced with armed Black men, he hid under a desk and then signed the Munford Act.
Not surprising to me that you would think that way, you think in a very liberal progressive bubble and anything outside that bubble is something to disparage and hate....
So your opinion of Reagan to me resides exactly in the correct circular file, I only have to flush it every once in a while...
and your knowledge is worse that Jeff's....
You evidently mean the Mulford Act , which governor Reagan signed into law as California governor. Why did he sign it? the Cali legislature had the votes to override any veto.....
Also the law took the guns out of the hands of the Black Panthers who were following the cops around openly carrying loaded weapons looking for points to create incidents....
The true story isn't what your representing.... But that's normal for your viewpoints
You have citations for this?
This one is right up there with Bush tapped the press's phones that you never could back up.
Must you ALWAYS devolve into that 'you're a hater' bullshit NWM?
The reason Reagan signed it is because he was scared shitless when the Panthers showed up on the steps of the state capital.
BTFW, the vote in the CA Assembly was 42-38 and the Senate was 20-20. HARDLY vetoproof. So while your spelling is impeccable, your posit is false.
Bullshit.
Kinda like the 3%ers and the Oath Keepers and the other open carry 'advocates' of today. Yet it would be sacrilege to even ask them for ID in most states.
More so than yours.
More irrelevant personal bullshit.
I prefer adulting but you do what you want...
Only with Liberal Progressives that actually do.....
The bill was bi-partisan, the 20-20 in the state senate was carved in stone and the deciding vote was held by a democrat supporter of it. In the world of bi-cameral government that is a veto-proof majority...... What I posit is as true as the day is light.
408 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 104:391
A. The Tactic of Organized Copwatching
Copwatching—in the way that I am using the term—does not simply refer
to the spontaneous recording of police officers in public by civilians but rather
to organized groups of local residents who patrol their neighborhoods, monitor
police conduct, and create videos of what they see. Individual, spontaneous
recordings of police officers can of course have a big, real-world impact—from
the spontaneous video recordings of the beating of Rodney King in 199173 to
more recent smartphone recordings of the killings of Eric Garner in New York
City in 201474 and Walter Scott in South Carolina in 2015,75 individual
recordings have a history of sparking outrage and dialogue about police
practices throughout the nation. Today, given the widespread use of
smartphones, civilian recording of police officers is ubiquitous. Professor Seth
Kreimer termed this phenomenon “pervasive image capture” and argued that
ubiquitous videotaping, especially of public officials, has the potential to
enhance public discourse and accountability.76
Organized copwatching, though, does more than capture video. Indeed, as
a tactic of police accountability, copwatching predates smartphone technology
and even predates handheld video recording devices. Organized copwatching
groups emerged as early as the 1960s in urban areas in the United States when
the Black Panthers famously patrolled city streets with firearms and cameras,
and other civil rights organizations conducted unarmed patrols in groups.
So much for bullshit....
I'm sure as a progressive you would love to have Oathkeepers (people like me who have taken the oath to protect and defend the constitution from all attacks) declared a terrorist organization and take their guns away. You support SPLC who lists Oathkeepers as a hate group....
For someone who usually uses the argument of prove it as a turnaboutism tactic to avoid any real debate, deal with the proof I've just provided that completely destroys your unresearched, unsupported precepts.
So do I, someday you will provide some. You could start with some facts to back up your bullshit assertions. which you usually demand from others...
Are you sure it's not right up there with Obama wiretapping Trump tower?
Then the day must be dark where you are. Utter FAIL.
So much for the Black Panthers 'following cops around' as you FALSELY claimed.
Yes, I sure as hell DO support the SPLC.
Looks like your the one that needs to step outside of your hate bubble on this one NWM. The SPLC doesn't list the Oathkeepers as a hate group.
The rest of you supercilious blather isn't worth a reply.
Again, YOUR CLAIMS do not make proof....
Provide some, cause you have been owned with FACTS.....
All you got so far is twisting facts.....
I'll be waiting, until I get tired of the lack of facts....
Burden of proof is directly on you.....
PROVE IT!
and BTW..... Directly from SPLC's website.....
The Oath Keepers, which claims tens of thousands of present and former law enforcement officials and military veterans as members, is one of the largest radical antigovernment groups in the U.S. today.
You don't even know the facts from the group you claim to support!
Your seriously embarrassing yourself....
What a totally ignorant comment. Please learn about evolution science before you speak about it. You're embarrassing yourself. Even Ken Hamm has told his idiotic followers of Answers in Genesis to stop saying that, because he's realized it makes everyone realize how ignorant his followers truly are, rather than advancing his agenda.
Gladly and I'll use your own comments. You claimed:
Then you post a link entitled The Tactic of Organized Copwatching
Note that WATCHING is NOT FOLLOWING.
You OWN block quote states that this Copwatching entailed:
Note that PATROLING isn't FOLLOWING cops around.
Your OWN comments PROVE that your claim is BULLSHIT.
Oh and BTFW, guns weren't taken 'out of the hands of the Black Panthers'. Just like all other Californians [even the white ones], they still had their guns, they just weren't allowed to open carry anymore.
Directly from SPLC's website:
What were you were saying about ME not knowing the facts NWM?
The Oathkeepers are NOT designated as a hate group by the SPLC NWM.
It takes a curiosity for facts to look a step further and pursue ALL of the information.
That information was readily available to you yet you chose to wallow in your 'disparage and hate' bubble and rushed here to post what you were so sure proved me wrong.
So I'll give back what you gave.
You've seriously embarrassed yourself NWM.
Your still twisting.....
I expected nothing less....
Thank you very much....
Well........the SPLC rates, extremists groups as well as hate groups and they are not necessarily the same groups.
You may not accept the terminology or the logic but that's straight from the web site.
Oath Keepers are listed as extremists, not a hate group.
A bit of history, the NRA supported the law. Yes, the defenders of the 2nd amendment were supporters of the Mulford law signed by Reagan...You can't have those blacks walking around open carrying can we.
Yep, we smart folk kind of have no tolerance for dumb folk. [Deleted]
[deleted]
Mulford applied to whites as well as blacks...... The fatal flaw in the racist/racism argument.....
In context, there were race riots going on all over the nation during the 60's In Cali specifically to open carrying with the intent of following the police around with loaded weapons. Now remember, I was a protester during those times, in some cases against bigots and in some cases against the government.....
I supported the 2nd amendment back then and still do today. Do I care if blacks open carry, no I don't, Do I care if whites open carry, no I don't. I even support your right to open carry if you so choose.
The NRA supports some gun control always has. They don't support gun control that restricts the right to possession/carrying of a gun in public if any citizen so chooses. Common sense dictates that there are few instances where open carry is justified.
Do I support Mulford, HELL NO.... and in fact I think that the Heller/McDonald decisions controvert the most heinous parts of Mulford. It just hasn't been challenged yet.
But a state has the right to restrict guns, Heller also supports that view, which I agree with. Currently Cali is one of the few states (two, California & Illinois) that is not an open carry state (complete ban on the practice all the rest of the states allow it in some form or under certain conditions) and no one has challenged that in federal court, maybe someday someone will get around to it I hope....
Nonetheless, the state of Cali has the right to prevent open carry if they so choose. As long as no one objects to raise the question.
Had nothing to specifically do with the skin color of those that were asserting their rights....
I stand with the Black Panthers on that one...
Mulford is BAD LAW..... Period.
Sounds more like Russian troll farm logic to me. It wouldn't surprise me if they use idiotic sites like the Liberty Institute to trick stupid people.
Of course if applied to both, it couldn't become law if it was only for blacks...You can spin it anyway you want but it was directed at the Black Panthers and not whites.....
I lived in CA during that time period and in the bay area, so please stop with the ''it was for both sides''...
I block quoted YOUR comments. If it's twisted, it's on you.
You get what you give.
You're welcome.
That's nice. prove it! Since you want to discuss science, provide evidence for a god and angels! That's how science works. Belief does not equal fact, nor is it scientifically based.
Wow, that statement just reeks of paranoia. As if science is just some conspiracy against god. Intellectually honest individuals will go where the evidence leads. Scientific theories and ideas are not a popularity contest and are based on evidence. I'll take Darwin over your god any day because Darwin has evidence to support it. Your god has none!
I'm not arguing at all that it wasn't in response to the Black Panthers following cops around with loaded weapons....
Indeed it was......
But what I am saying is the response would have been the same if it was a band of Mexicans or Natives or Whiteboys doing the same thing.....
So stop alluding that it was a racist thing....
Cause it wasn't...
Nonsense NWM...The history of the US is loaded with laws that restrict minorities from owning weapons.
The NRA saw the Black Panthers as a threat as did much of America...It was the 60's and racial tension were at the boiling point. The Panthers, in taking to the streets with weapons were well within the laws of California at the time and it rattled the hell out of the establishment.
So yes, it was racist, period.
Well the fact that the panthers had declared themselves as at war with the authorities might have had something to do with it also.....
And what about the ambushes?
I mean again, the state is going to react in that manner no matter what race it is doing it......
And yes, I lived through that time also..... And the law doesn't restrict minorities it restricts everyone.....
The Black Panthers declared themselves as revolutionaries, and they also declared that they would use organized violence as the means to effectuate it...... Bombings and ambushes, open combat in every sense of the word.
People talk about it being nasty today? They haven't a clue how nasty it can get.....
Saying it was racist, equating it with past proven racism, doesn't make it a racist act.....
It took the right to carry openly away from everyone. That, by definition makes it non-racist no matter the motivation. Besides there were a lot of other races involved at the time.... the Weathermen for example?
And what about the Cleaver/Newton dispute over methods and tactics, each tried to expel the other, Cleaver wanted to stop using violence and Newton wanted to step it up?
They were every bit the violent radical terrorist organization they claimed to be......
It's no wonder the government made openly carrying a weapon a violation of state law.....
I hear PBS has a documentary coming out which attempts to make the Black Panthers into something they weren't.... Gonna have to watch it, see how they "whitewash" actual history....
You must be speaking of the Alliance Defense Fund, Liberty Council, Family Research Council, Concerned Women For America, American Family Association, CIS, FAIR, and more. Not only are they regular visitors to the White House but many have members who are actually within the administration in various government positions as well as on congressional staff or committee staff or clerking for judges or are actually judges or argue and win cases before the Supreme Court. Basically all these so called per the SPLC that they tried to harm and censor are a big part of our government and thus the leaders and key members and organizations themselves are often in the news via many other media. I think it’s great that the more the left tried to harm us and our organizations the more powerful they become. For us, being on their so called hate list is a badge of honor.
Oath keepers are great Americans.
Basically nothing more than a bunch of bigoted religious fanatics who are pushing for Christian Sharia Law and working hard to deny women, gays, and others equal rights.
I find it disgusting that you're proud to admit you share their views.
Actually the people that really know me know a friendly shy man who is generous, compassionate, caring, has a sense of humor, is a good listener, who is honest and trustworthy and tries to live according to his values. They know my shortcomings as well.
Why keep posting BS that your own comments have debunked?
Since the Black Panthers weren't following cops around with loaded weapons, we'll never know
Why? There must be some reason for you to keep making false accusations about the BP.
Sure it was.
Like I said. I’m both. I am old earth when it comes to God always existing and having been creating the vast infinite universe. God has creation all over the universe of every kind save one. I’m also old earth in reference to what was here from who knows how long ago in Genesis 1:1. I am young earth in that I believe the earth was created by God from that material already here by His doing in a literal calendar week,the sixth day of which was his grand creation, us in His image. No one knows how long Adam and Eve lived before they sinned and were cast out of Eden and the long planned for plan of salvation was revealed to them. From that point to present I am young earth.
So they've joined the deep state. Got ya.
No, they have enlisted in our great crusade to uproot and cast out the deep state wherever it lurks within the secular progressive swamp that is Washington DC.
You are defending that domestic terrorist hate group?
and I find it disgusting that you are proud to share the views of that terrorist inspiring bigoted hate group SPLC and it’s money laundering raqueteering scam artists.
They haven't 'enlisted' in anything. They're bureaucrats sucking at the government tit.
What about the ambushes.
Huey newton alleged killed an Oakland LEO and was convicted of manslaughter. The conviction was later overturned by the appellate court.
Ekldride Clever and Bobby Hutton were involved in a shoot out with LEO in which Hutton was killed and two LEO's wounded.
A little more research into Hoover's COINTELPRO program certainly bears looking into. Or the shoot out in Chicago in which two blacks panthers were killed and the Chicago police lied about it. The report shows that the Black Panthers fired one shot, the Chicago LEO's over 100.
What the hell do internal fightings between members have to do with this..Again COINTELPRO had their hands in the middle of it all.
PBS is going to make the Panthers into something they weren't...What is that NWM? I think that if Hoover and COINTELPRO is investigated it would make some really interesting viewing...Old J. Edgar was damn good at ''whitewashing''.
Who are your claiming I am defending Xx?
Then you disagree with Young Earth Creationism. YEC abuses science in a pathetic attempt to argue that nothing -including the raw material of the planet- is older than ~10,000 years. They continue this nonsense and argue that the entire cosmos is not older than ~10,000 years.
Did you know that?
This is the foundation of Young Earth Creationism.
I feel the same about your genuflection to the 'Alliance Defense Fund, Liberty Council, Family Research Council, Concerned Women For America, American Family Association, CIS, FAIR, and more.'
Well denial of actual history is part and parcel of the democrat race baiting tactic isn't it?
'Policing The Police': How The Black Panthers Got Their Start I guess National Public Radio is lying.....
Panther Patrols: Publicity and Performance "It's About Gettin' the Man's Attention" I guess the University of Virginia is lying......
27 Important Facts Everyone Should Know About The Black Panthers I guess Huffpost is lying also.....
There are many more references to the Black Panthers following police around and confronting them with drawn guns, and these three are favorable to the black movement and your politics......
False accusations?
Take a course, learn what your talking about.....
No argument there, Hoover was all about more power for Hoover..... (my understanding is that they disposed of a lot of Hoovers private files as too damning to allow their revelation to the public)
No glory on any side...... in any of this is there. It was one hell of a time in america and I for one do not want to go back there......
Turn them into a peaceful group dedicated to peace and the protection of the people..... That's what we all hear today. The reality was something different.......
I guess they aired it on the 19th I'll have to find it and post it..... See what they have actually done to the story......
It would be nice if PBS did show all sides of the Black Panthers...You and the general public may find out things that you didn't know about the Panthers. All good things.
Yes.
I'm talking about your false accusation. Here it is AGAIN:
Since the Black Panthers KEPT their hands on their guns and YOU debunked the rest, what's left to talk about?
Maybe I aught to do an article of the last six Panther movies/documentaries.....
Maybe we all can learn something.....
WTF are you talking about?
The law took the right to CARRY OPENLY away for EVERYONE in Cali is the only claim I made.....
And it was done to stop the armed confrontations of police.
You can mischaracterize what I'm saying all you want, it doesn't change it, and each time you do, plain factual history makes you look more the fool....
And you can be whatever you wish to be.......
YOUR claim is debunked and that is factually unrecoverable at this point....
Like I said before, keep on twisting....
I know that. I’m only young earth as it applies to this earth since God created life on it. In every other aspect I’m old universe. So my beliefs are something of a hybrid of the two but still with in the scope of a biblical literalist.
That’s fine by me. I don’t care who you choose to associate with. Feel free. I also don’t care about what you think of my Associations. All those you mention and more are like a part of me and I stand by all of what all of them have to say. I relish the fact that despite the SPLC and the social and msm parrots who follow them attempts to harm and censor us, we are publicized in more places and are more powerful than ever and certainly before the SPLC decided to turn ideological differences into so called hate.
You do yourself a great disservice then by self-labeling as a Young Earth Creationist. YECs would not consider you to be one of them (good for you!).
But bad for you in the denial of evolution. The YEC denial of evolution is simply because it contradicts their biblical timeline. It is an irreconcilable difference.
Since you do not hold to their timeline you do not have the same reason for denying evolution. Yours, I would guess, is rooted in the view that because the Bible says that God created life forms this can only mean direct, abrupt creation. Other old Earth creationists do not deny evolution but rather accept the science (smart move) and adjust their biblical interpretations based on the facts. They view evolution as the method by which God created species.
So why tout Young Earth Creationist nonsense? Why parrot their ridiculous arguments and absurd claims?
If you want to parrot somebody, forget about Ken Ham, et. al. and turn to a leading scientist in genetic research: Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins is an old Earth creationist, devout Christian, and also one of the more brilliant, accomplished scientists of our time in the evolutionary sciences. He is also co-founder of a website that explains real science to Christians: biologos.org
Look him up. I do not agree with his religious views, but the man does not play free and easy with science like the YEC nutcases. He (and biologos in general) try very hard to stick to the findings of science and - based on that - provide a religious interpretation of the Bible.
They do not try to deny evolution (stupid and futile) but accept the well-established science and work to interpret the Bible in sensible terms that do not require the demonstrably wrong denial of extremely well corroborated modern knowledge.
I posted it clearly and YOU made the statement originally.
Which doesn't 'keep guns out of their hands' does it NWM?
Oh, NOW it's 'armed confrontations'. Is that in ADDITION to 'following cops around' or is that a NEW SEPERATE delusion?
Oh and by 'confrontations' do you like this one from YOUR link:
Yes, Newton 'confronted' authorities with the Constitution and State law. The HORROR!
I've QUOTED you NWM. It's foolish to pretend any different.
I never needed your leave...
My claim is that your claim is bullshit and it IS bullshit.
Since I quoted you, no 'twisting' occurred.
Oh I'm sure that your crib notes on the work of documentarians will be eliminating. /s
Oh how I have waited for your leave to have free will. /s
Right, claim away, it makes no difference.
You like to spin that's all you offer....
I don't do "Crib Notes" I post the actual linkages or documentaries to allow others to come to their own conclusions.....
So in essence I try to eliminate "spin" where you work to create it......
In my world?
SPIN = POLITICAL LIE, PROPAGANDA
Or Wiki if you like
How bout the NY Times ? Paul Krugman no less, you should believe him like the second coming....
And your very good at it....
but alas, when your all done, you lost the debate and your quoting from my links prove my contention that your objecting to, all you got left is insults.....
Pretty typical.....
There isn't enough mustard on the planet for your pretzel logic.
And there isn't enough ketchup in the world to turn your veggie dog facts into real kosher beef facts either....
Like I said you lose, you resort to insults..... So it really isn't about the facts is it.... More like about your inability to accept historical facts....
Very nice reply Wally. Thank you
Goddidit. That’s all the explanation that some people need.
What fields of science would those "scientists" be in?
Skepticism is fine. There are people who are "skeptical" about the Earth being round. But skepticism alone does not diminish or invalidate a scientific theory. Especially not one as strong and solid as evolution.
Those are the best explanations for the diversity of life. I have yet to hear any other valid explanation.
Sure. But evolution has been studied and examined since it was first proposed. It has withstood all attempts at denial or refutation.
Major red flag right there, especially where the credibility of these "scientists" (as well as those who support or endorse the DI) is concerned.
Then I'm sure they can propose a better explanation and provide evidence to back it up. Right?
The point is to find that better answer rather than to silence, repress, and censor those looking at alternatives.
Writes the man who deems the evolutionary sciences to be pseudo-science.
Think about that KAG.
What TiG said! But also, there is no better answer or explanation. Anything else may be considered. But if any alternative does not hold up to scientific scrutiny, then it should be abandoned. As it is, there is no better alternative present or even proposed alternative. Somehow, I bet your "better answer" would involve a supernatural or divine component.
Actually Xx, the POINT is to follow the science and let the chips fall where they may. Since 'creationism' isn't a science, it leads NOWHERE.
In other words censor alternatives and while we’re at it censor the expression of creation as a religious belief as well by labeling the religion itself as a pseudoscience as is presently happening.
No Xx, NOT in other words.
Creationism IS a religious belief and in NO WAY an ALTERNATIVE to SCIENCE.
No one has labeled religion a pseudoscience.
You are flat out wrong. Go to the MBFC website and see how many religion/Christian/denomination websites they have listed as pseudoscience for expressing belief in the great global flood, Angels, literal 6 day creation as part of their literalist religious beliefs even if they have regular news and political opinion sections. Based on what you said above you will be surprised.
MBFC is wrong, calling creationism pseudoscience. It doesn't even rise to that level.
Censorship? Your ridiculous articles are still here, so you're not being censored. You're being called out. Not the same thing.
It’s only here because I found a source they haven’t yet called questionable due to its strong conservative outlook that wrote the article. It isn’t easy finding 3rd party sources to circumvent MBFC blocks on getting my viewpoints expressed here. Religious beliefs identical to mine are in fact being censored here because MBFC has labeled religious belief as pseudoscience. That is not in any way deniable. They are very close to doing likewise to the Southern Baptist site they currently list as right bias.
Do you realize that you have, on numerous occasions, deemed the whole of evolutionary sciences to be pseudo-science? If you had your way the schools in the USA would not teach evolutionary sciences. They would avoid discussing genetics, biological mutations (e.g. how viruses evolve), and all topics that touch on the evolution of life.
How can you not realize that it is you who is trying to censor — and what you are trying to censor is one of the most highly corroborated findings of science.
That established, religion is not being censored. The super majority of people in the USA are religious! Your claim is absurd. Further, most irreligious people are not out to censor religion but rather to challenge the beliefs ... to encourage people to not simply accept as truth that which was told to them by other human beings — to think critically about their beliefs.
Maybe if people would stop trying to push 'pseudo-science' as part of their religious beliefs this would not occur. Ken Ham and his gang are in a major campaign trying to misinform people about evolution and their campaign is based on nonsense pseudo-science. Maybe turn your attention to nutcases like Ham instead of complaining that religions are being censored.
Bottom line, any organization that pushes nonsense should expect to be challenged. The more they push the nonsense the more they should expect challenges in their face.
Not being given a platform to attempt to pass mythology off as science is NOT censorship.
well of course it is in the mind of many of the religious - it coincides with their war ideology and war mentality their religious beliefs are apart of. It's always "you vs them" and they always assume they are on the "good side" -- even when their religious leaders are indulging in not so good (or downright evil) activities (because in the end.. they are religious leaders who are devoted to "god" so all they have to do is pray they won't commit the evil act again and -- BOOM ! all is forgiven and they are on the "good" side once again).
That’s not the issue. Religious belief is the issue. Some people’s religious beliefs expressed as religious belief not even mentioning science are being listed as pseudoscience because of their expression of a literalist biblical viewpoint as their religious beliefs. They at MBFC are not defending science. They are attacking religion.
Take it up with Ken Ham and similar folks who laughably try to use science to support mythology. They're the source of the issue. Calling out transparent attempts at deception is not censorship, nor is it the problem here. The transparent attempts at deception are the problem.
The expression of religious belief is not deception. It is the honest held viewpoint of the religious believer. It’s not up to you if in the course of our religious belief that we believe in creation or not. That belief is not grounds for labeling or censorship based on that labeling.
As usual, you conflate a website with religion.
Telling people that science supports it is, and your seeds often consist of such.
If I were to tell people that science supports that Apollo's chariot pulls the sun across the sky, and accused anyone who called me out on that blatant lie of censorship, I'd be laughed out of the room (or off of the website), and rightly so.
Thank you.
No one is being censored. Anyone can propose an alternative idea. But without evidence to back it up, such ideas lack any merit and are thusly dismissed.
Everyone knows creationism is a religious belief. And religion is not a science. So what's the problem?
Religious belief is not science. Real science doesn't operate by belief. it goes by the evidence, of which there is none to support religious ideas like angels the Flood, ect..
Pseudoscience would be giving your and like beliefs too much credit. And spare us the persecution complex. Your beliefs are not being censored. They are simply not being taken seriously and thus ignored or dismissed. But you are still free to express them.
Belief does not equal fact nor does religon equal science.
Which in no way makes the beliefs themselves valid or true.
No one is being censored? Donald Trump Jr. disagrees as do conservatives and evangelical Christians. That’s why USA.Life is officially launching as an alternative to Facebook and Twitter and 1776Free is coming soon to be an alternative to Google. Just like it took time to build an alternative media from talk radio to Fox to now, the conservative alternatives on line are coming as well and I’m sure the old originals will create gatekeepers to try to isolate those as questionable, pseudoscience, and hate for no good reason as well. The day will sadly come when liberals and conservatives will share a bsilutelt zero grounds for any communication at all as it’s better to be segregated and talking over and around each other than to have the terms of communication set by the secular left. No communication and joint isolation would be preferable and Facebook is first up.
Did I stutter?
And that meas what to me?
So no one is being censored then. Thanks for proving me right!
The alternatives are coming to be because there was censorship elsewhere. As to what things mean to you, few things on this planet matter less to me than that.
When a website affiliates with or is owned by a religion or a denomination it is effectively religion and blocking or censoring the mouthpiece of said religion is censoring that religion and it’s beliefs.
The sheer arrogant condescending tone of those written words toward the Christian religion and it’s believers is duly noted.
I think USA.Life should be forced to print the Satanic Bible. If it refuses, it is guilty of censorship.
When a religion uses the internet to insist that their dogma should equate to science, they should be evaluated equivalently with science and called out for the charlatans that they are.
If there were real censorship, they wouldn't be allowed at all. But since they are allowed, there is no censorship.
The feeling is more than mutual.
Any website can be blocked by someone. That is an option with internet security features. But those sites are allowed to exist on the internet. So they are not censored.
The sheer whining by some chrtistians is also noted.
And Atheists are the biggest whiners and control freaks on the face of the planet.....
Nice sweeping generalization. Also seems like a game of "I know you are but what am I?" It also doesn't address any of the points made. But that's not surprising either.
One sweep from you earned one from me. You like?
Donald Trump + Donald Jr. are both criminals and anti Christian.
I would love to report that comment however I don't find the way to do it. So I'll just say you are just making things up which may or maynot be in your script
Trolling
Nobody's stopping you from moving to an island with your fellow young earth creationists. Or forcing you to go to any websites which acknowledge pseudoscience for what it is, or to have a Facebook account. If you choose to only frequent sites which print falsehoods and accept religious myths over reality, and which reject science because it's too threatening to your faith, that's your choice.
How juvenile! Also, point out where I made any sweeping generalization!
You're ALL wrong. Adam and Eve were two youths who were sent to the lush verdant planet Earth from the remaining people on the dying planet Mars in a spaceship (just like Superman was sent from the dying planet Krypton), in order to grow and propagate, something like the stranded youths in the movie Blue Lagoon, and become the father and mother of humanity on Earth. The Old Testament is almost right as far as it goes, but indicates no prehistory. My theory is just as valid as anyone else's, including Darwinian scientists, because NOBODY can prove that they're right.
You just have to have more faith in the movies. I've always said that LIFE IMITATES ART, notwithstanding that sometimes ART IMITATES LIFE.
So you see, you need to join the Everyone Loves Movies, Classic to Current group, watch more movies, and get a taste of reality, not the tiresome aggravating fiction of Politics.
Your theory is as valid as any, maybe more so. After all the Bible story is also a huge stretch. G-d manifested Adam out of dust then stole one of his ribs to make his wife, Eve.
So how did humanity proceed with just them and their sons Cain and Abel ? Did the sons hook up with neanderthal gals ?
To answer your question, I'll give you 3 alternative possibilities:
1. As I amended my treatise to say "the old testament is ALMOST right", it may have omitted Eve's twins born after Cain and Abel - Abra and Anna.
2. Oedipus Incest
3. The Muslim imams may be partially right in that Cain and Abel did their thing with chimpanzees, in which case not just Jews, but everybody is descended from apes, including the imams.
So the Blue Lagoon is actually a creation myth?
No. Please pay attention. I have provided two movie EXAMPLES of my theory. My theory, and I will repeat it for you with more clarification, is that a male youth and female youth were sent to an uninhabited but verdant Earth from a dying planet (EXAMPLE: Superman sent to Earth from Krypton) and not only survived but thrived and then propagated (EXAMPLE: The two youths in the movie Blue Lagoon). Genesis, in the Old Testament provided an allegorical story, just as the creation of Heaven and Earth over a seven day period is allegorical as well. That is neither evolution nor creationism. My theory is merely one that differs from both.
So all of the animals were already here and the apples weren't forbidden?
Only The Shadow knows.....
Sounds like a plot line taken from Star Trek. Of course, a single male-female pairing does not a viable genetic pool make.
More Than 1,000 Ph.D. Scientists Are 'Skeptical' of Darwinian Evolution
It begs the question:
Were those Doctorates issued via Trump University or was it the College of Bob?
With the education we have available to us as Americans in the USA and you don't believe in evolution it is my opinion that common sense has failed you.
Bryan leaned toward a fundamentalist view of Scripture , although he faltered in some areas, such as thinking the days of creation may have been something other than 24-hour days. He saw little point in dividing politics from his Christian faith , and after World War I he grew increasingly alarmed at seeing modernists , with their weak beliefs in the Bible , gaining prominent positions in churches and on school boards. The real enemies of Christianity , Bryan said, were not atheists and agnostics , but those who "suck meaning out of every vital doctrine of the Christian Church."
Bryan had for some time argued that the theory of evolution was largely hokum posing a science, and when he read a book by psychology professor James H. Leuba, The Belief in God and Immortality , published in 1916, his concern intensified. Leuba revealed that research showed that college education eroded students’ religious faith. Bryan decided that evolutionary teaching was a serious cause of moral decay.
In 1920, Bryan said he felt that evolution was "the most paralyzing influence with which civilization has had to contend during the last century." In 1921, he attacked evolution in an influential pamphlet titled The Menace of Darwinism . In this pamphlet, Bryan warned: "Under the pretense of teaching science, instructors who draw their salaries from the public treasury are undermining the religious faith of students by substituting belief in Darwinism for belief in the Bible ." He suggested that those who worship "brute ancestors" should "build their own colleges and employ their own teachers" instead of using public schools to preach their "godless doctrine."
Opposition to evolution grows
As Bryan’s attacks on evolution increased, so did his support, especially in the South, where fundamentalist values were most sound. In speeches around the nation, Bryan captured support from Bible-believing Christians for his biblical and anti-Darwinist stance. "It is better to trust in the Rock of Ages than to know the ages of rock," he shouted to deafening cheers from supporters.
When Bryan arrived in Nashville, Tennessee, on January 24, 1925, he delivered a powerful antievolution speech titled "Is the Bible True?" A local attorney sent a copy of Bryan’s speech to every member of the state’s General Assembly to enlighten them to the dangers of evolution . Influential evangelist Billy Sunday arrived in town a few weeks later and pumped up the crowds further with his revival meetings, in which he also scorned the theory of evolution .
Among the audience listening to Bryan’s speech on that Saturday night was state representative John Washington Butler. He was so moved by Bryan’s concern over evolution that almost immediately he drafted the antievolutionary Butler Act for the State of Tennessee. The Butler Act banned "the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals [teacher training colleges] and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State." The Butler Act passed initial legislation stage on March 13, 1925, and Governor Austin Peay signed it into law on March 21, 1925.
Bryan immediately sent a telegram of congratulations to Governor Peay, saying, "The Christian parents of the State owe you a debt of gratitude for saving their children from the poisonous influence of an unproven hypothesis."
So you think an example of some religious folks passing anti-science legislation and actually censoring science is a good thing?
Sad, but not surprising.
William Jennings Bryan was more right on this issue than any other in his life.
So, you're in favor of theocracy?
Sad, but not surprising.
I won't live in a country ruled by theocrats such as yourself
Education eroded religious indoctrination?
Oh no! Science teachers teaching science instead of blindly accepting as truth the words of ancient men with pens.
Sometimes the nonsense is its own best rebuttal.
A better explanation of origins.
So you double down on the nonsense and pull out the cliche YEC claim that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood.
This is a glimpse at what it would be like if schools allowed YEC nonsense to be taught as science.
Exactly.
And to think, there are parents who teach their kids this crap at home, and prevent their children from exposure to actual science. Forcing ignorance on a child ought to be considered child abuse.
Worse is the fact that there are actually geologists on the list of 'phd scientists' from the seed. That seems counter intuitive.
Would you believe that I work with so-called scientists and geologists that believe in the young earth crap?
Yeah....they ain't too good at their job, either
I am long convinced that religious beliefs can overpower critical thinking and intelligence.
Wow, learning facts might make people reject mythology? Who would have thought it?
That's Christian Dominion theology for you - keep them ignorant and they won't doubt the lies you teach them.
We see this practiced on a large scale today with the Young Earth Creationists. The problem is that clearly there are millions of modern human beings who fall for this crap. 10% of the USA are YECs.
Cognitive dissonance isn't a scientific asset.
The inexplicable confirmation bias is what concerns me.
I would think cognitive dissonance is hard work. The mental gymnastics required to reject science and to accept myths when they are clearly wrong must be exhausting.
How religious are the countries with the highest IQs?
and US states....
In past cases, monetary gain easily explains why 'scientists' supported the insupportable. The Kochs and Corporations like Exxon paid 'scientists' millions to sell their souls.
The motivation of the 'scientists' on this list may be monetary but I don't rule out religious delusion.
I know one thing, scientists don't come to conclusions and then search for facts to support that conclusions.
Coming up with ridiculous defenses for their agenda is their 'thing'.
"The flat earth society has members all around the globe" Now that is funny!
That would assume they have a conscience. I think that they have learned to departmentalize so that they can decry what they label lies while lying themselves.
An example of that is the David Irving v. Penguin Books Ltd. and Deborah Lipstadt trial.
Agreed given that is precisely NOT science. ( It is religion. )
That's like saying "Young Earth Creationists have been around for eons…".
The funny thing is that the Young Earth movement dates from the 1800s ... earlier Christians apparently weren't stupid enough to believe in it.
Which reminds me of how these people have no idea what a hypothesis or scientific theory are.