I heard an interview with him a few months ago. He thinks that the reason that water molecules have a high latent heat of evaporation is that they were designed that way from the outset so that billions of years later, a certain species of ape who was adapting to a life out of the trees, could get rid of its excess heat while running down prey.
I couldn’t help thinking of Douglas Adams’ story about the suddenly-sentient puddle who is amazed that the hole he occupies fits him so exactly, that it must have been designed that way by someone who made it just for him.
Why is there such scientific consensus? Read the article to discover that any scientists with valid scientific differences with the juggernaut scientific community are blacklisted and cannot find work, so they conform, the bunch of cowards.
Yeah, that’s science for ya!:smack:
Nice source! I’m so conflicted now!:rolleyes:
They can find work in plenty of creationist institutes. And it is not like their papers are getting rejected - studies have indicated that they do not submit many papers. Now to have a paper with a chance they have to get some data, not just speculation, so it is not surprising that they don’t bother. Have any counterexamples?
Behe at least knows how to work in science. His ID stuff is wrong but not moronic. But Behe accepts evolution, so he probably doesn’t count.
I realize I’m playing fast and loose with the term “theory” as it is traditionally defined and generally accepted. It was all in the failed attempt at humour.
I was wrong. I made a grievous error. I appologize unreservedly.
Since we were discussing the misuse of the traditionally defined use of scientific theory it was inappropriate for this thread. It is an example of the misuse that the OP is guilty of and, as such, was sure to be addressed by the participants.
Clearly it was an allusion to David and Goliath, portraying the valiant struggle against the mammoth forces aligned in support of creationism.
(Completely unrelated, but I was very amused by this article that relied on the story of David and Goliath, but got confused about which one was the giant:
It’s in the Bible. 1 Samuel 17. David’s the dude that killed the OP’s father. Hence the OP’s (dare I say it?) butthurtedness about him.
[spoiler]Unfortunately for the OP, just like Luke and Vader in Star Wars, it’s going to be revealed in the third movie that David is the OP’s father, and that the ‘David vs. Goliath’ myth is just that. A myth concocted, for political reasons, to hide the truth. Sorry OP. Learn to live with it, like Luke did.
Cite: David: I am your father, Atarii. Atarii: No. NO! That’s not true. That’s impossible! David: Search your feelings, you know it to be true. Atarii: Nooooo! No…
[as an aside, in movie 4 or 6, David will be doing this, but that will be before the OP is born. These movies are sooooooo predictable.]
[/spoiler]
If a scientist were to come up with a theory that explains the origin of the species *better *than evolution, he’d be the most famous scientist in the world. Why would he be blacklisted? He’d be be the toast of the scientific community.
The problem, of course, is that the theory of evolution *is *the best theory we’ve got.
There’s no massive conspiracy. Why would there be one?
And the same step from knowing that Evolution is a weakly-supported religous belief to knowing that Evolution is false.
You seem to have made that step. Which I respect. I’m outside this argument. But you’ve taken the argument inside their religious beliefs and called out their religious beliefs as irrational. With respect, that’s never going to work.
So, here are some suggestions about how you could handle it.
I’m insulted. I respect your firmly held beliefs, and ask you to respect mine.
I’m insulted. You’ve got your religous beliefs, and when you’ve studied up on comparitive religon, HPS, or anthropology, get back to me about that. Until then, SFU.
You’re ridiculous. You all agree with each other, and have no idea how funny that looks. You’re “science” is like Mormon theology, but you take it seriously, don’t you?. You know, most of them don’t?
Take your pick. I reckon any of those suggestions is likely to be more fun and educational than throwing rocks at a hornets nest, but hey, I remember what Mark Twain said too.
You are not “outside this argument.” You are outside the entire context in which the argument occurs. Referring to the scientific discussion regarding evolution as a “belief,” particularly a religious belief, is rather like stating that one is “outside the argument” between a person who holds that all human illness is the result of demons attacking the body and a person who identifies disease in terms of bacteria, viruses, and the body’s blood- and lymph-borne responses to such pathogens.
Those who recognize the value of the Theory of Evolution are not engaged in “belief.” The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The moment one decides to attack it as a “belief,” one proclaims one’s ignorance.
Your point 1 is silly: choosing to be insulted because one is ignorant of science is pointless.
Your point 2 is foolish: choosing to be insulted because one is ignorant of science and then appealing to really bad analogies to comparative religions or falsely appealing to “anthropology” demonstrates that one is not merely ignorant, but willfully ignorant.
Your point 3 is stupid: it not only demonstrates an ignorance of the topic, it goes further to use one’s ignorance as a platform from which to hurl unfounded insults, proclaiming one’s ignorance in the worst possible way.