Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence please?

You can look into James Shapiro for one. He is not an ID supporter nor a Creationist but you find him being labeled as such by other scientists.

 

[crjmurray]

You would have been correct in days past. However, now with the head to head war between "Creationists" and "evolutionists" that is no longer true. New ideas that might be something "creationists" might use to support their position are strongly avoided and in some cases those who bring them are ridiculed as ID supporters even if they are not.

So its a conspiracy then. Great.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So its a conspiracy then. Great.

I wouldn't call a conspiracy.

 

[lifepsyop]

Yea, I am sure scientists are shaking in their boots and expending a lot of energy in regards to thinking about creationism in their work.

In their actions the evolutionary community is actually quite paranoid about the idea of any flavor of evolution-skepticism gaining even the slightest foothold. They know they cannot duke it out on a level playing field so they have to constantly pump out propaganda pieces from the safety of their mass-media stronghold. If someone in the academic/education system even whispers about the possibility that Evolution/Common-Descent could be false, it is usually enough to set off a full fledged witch-hunt. There is an entire public-relations industry dedicated to routing out heretics to the evolutionary faith. A scientist/educator knows they better be very high up in the ranks if they want the chance to speak freely without fear of persecution, and even then there is no guarantee. The evolutionary community makes regular politics look tame in comparison.

The evolutionary community has shamefully obliterated any spirit of free scientific criticism and open inquiry in the modern age, and that is how they will be remembered.

 

[crjmurray]

I wouldn't call a conspiracy.

Then it is a good thing that words have definitions. A large group of people working internationally to quell one area of knowledge while simultaneously promoting another would qualify as a conspiracy.

 

[bhsmte]

In their actions the evolutionary community is actually quite paranoid about the idea of any flavor of evolution-skepticism gaining even the slightest foothold. They know they cannot duke it out on a level playing field so they have to constantly pump out propaganda pieces from the safety of their mass-media stronghold. If someone in the academic/education system even whispers about the possibility that Evolution/Common-Descent could be false, it is usually enough to set off a full fledged witch-hunt. There is an entire public-relations industry dedicated to routing out heretics to the evolutionary faith. A scientist/educator knows they better be very high up in the ranks if they want the chance to speak freely without fear of persecution, and even then there is no guarantee. The evolutionary community makes regular politics look tame in comparison.

The evolutionary community has shamefully obliterated any spirit of free scientific criticism and open inquiry in the modern age, and that is how they will be remembered.

Can you back any of these opinions up with evidence?

 

[Goonie]

You can look into James Shapiro for one. He is not an ID supporter nor a Creationist but you find him being labeled as such by other scientists.

Interesting, but he clearly has not been hounded out of science, he is a scientist who supports non-darwinian evolution, and continues working in the field of biology. Sorry but not exactly strong evidence, scientists do disagree amongst each other.

 

[lifepsyop]

Perhaps you might ask those creationists who actually have scientific credentials why none of the science they have had published in the mainstream scientific journals support creationism; rather, the only support for creationism is in the creationist literature. For example, Andrew Snelling, a geologist who has no problem with an old earth in the mainstream peer review literature, but does have a problem with it in the creationist literature.

Most of the secular literature does not support Evolution at all. It is usually a bunch of data with a religious evolutionary assumption sprinkled here and there or tacked on the end... sort of a "look what evolution must have done" type of closing statement.

The only difference is that the peer-review system protects one creation religion along with all of its bald assertions, but forbids any other.

 

[lifepsyop]

Interesting, but he clearly has not been hounded out of science, he is a scientist who supports non-darwinian evolution, and continues working in the field of biology. Sorry but not exactly strong evidence, scientists do disagree amongst each other.

Shapiro believes in universal common descent via materialistic evolution. He is borderline for his heresy against neo-Darwinism but still maintains the core evolutionary faith so he is grudgingly tolerated.

 

[bhsmte]

Shapiro believes in universal common descent via materialistic evolution. He is borderline for his heresy against neo-Darwinism but still maintains the core evolutionary faith so he is grudgingly tolerated.

Since he agrees with common decent, can you tolerate him?

 

[Goonie]

Most of the secular literature does not support Evolution at all. It is usually a bunch of data with a religious evolutionary assumption sprinkled here and there or tacked on the end... sort of a "look what evolution must have done" type of closing statement.

The only difference is that the peer-review system protects one creation religion along with all of its bald assertions, but forbids any other.

Sorry, but 150 years of science literature has backed evolution, it is one of the most rigorously researched of subjects. You might want to read the dictionary definition of a religion, evolution is a science accepted by every university of note.

 

[lifepsyop]

Since he agrees with common decent, can you tolerate him?

I know he's wrong about universal common descent, but I would never try and persecute him for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

... evolution is a science accepted by every university of note.

Who's the drummer?

 

[bhsmte]

I know he's wrong about universal common descent, but I would never try and persecute him for it.

How do you know he is wrong?

You do seem to persecute science in general though, when they agree with evolution.

 

[Goonie]

Most of the secular literature does not support Evolution at all. It is usually a bunch of data with a religious evolutionary assumption sprinkled here and there or tacked on the end... sort of a "look what evolution must have done" type of closing statement.

The only difference is that the peer-review system protects one creation religion along with all of its bald assertions, but forbids any other.

Heres a usefull response to the idea of evolution as a religion from Berkeley.

"This fallacious argument is based on the idea that evolution and religion are fundamentally the same since they are both "belief systems." This idea is simply incorrect. Belief in religious ideas is based on faith, and religion deals with topics beyond the realm of the natural world. Acceptance of scientific ideas (like evolution) is based on evidence from the natural world, and science is limited to studying the phenomena and processes of the natural world. To learn more about the difference between science and religion, visit the Understanding Science website.

For further information go to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#i2

 

[RickG]

I guess that would depend on what you mean by support of creationism. What do you define as creationism?

Creation Science.

 

[RickG]

Most of the secular literature does not support Evolution at all.

When I say scientific literature, I specifically mean the mainstream peer review scientific literature. What do you mean by secular literature?

It is usually a bunch of data with a religious evolutionary assumption sprinkled here and there or tacked on the end... sort of a "look what evolution must have done" type of closing statement.

How is the scientific literature a religion. What God does it worship? Or, is it your intention meant to taunt by calling the scientific literature a religion?

The only difference is that the peer-review system protects one creation religion along with all of its bald assertions, but forbids any other.

Look "lifepsyop", I really don't care if you or anyone accepts or rejects evolution. My only concern is that people do not reject it for the wrong reasons, which is by way of deliberately misrepresented science, which much of the creation science literature engages in. Do you understand?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes there have, there have been many of them - which should give them an indication that this rare preservation isn't that rare - and the fossils are not the age they believe them to be. Instead they want miracle after miracle after miracle to occur against all the odds of that soft tissue being preserved just once, let alone countless times, and call it science.

Sorry - originally was quoting Rick and then changed to yours but forgot to delete the part to him

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you actually proved that our assumptions on tissue preservation were correct in the past. When did you prove that part? Because its a very simple thing to simply say we found out our assumptions were wrong.

 

[lifepsyop]

How do you know he is wrong?

Because the word of God says he's wrong. Humans and different kinds of animals were created separately. I think I'll trust the Creator over a bunch of quasi-pantheistic philosophers.

 

[bhsmte]

Because the word of God says he's wrong. Humans and different kinds of animals were created separately. I think I'll trust the Creator over a bunch of quasi-pantheistic philosophers.

You do that then.