That's just a long-winded way of saying "made up."

Sure that's fair. However, I would be surprised, especially given that it is a BBC product, if there weren't some scientific consultants and advisers.

That may be the way you interpret it, but I think what they actually mean is an "educated guess".






I would be too, but I was unable to find that information.

But given that you belive everything was made up, would it even matter to you if they did have scientific advisers?

If I remember correctly, somewhere it states that they used data from something like 600? scientists over the course of the series. I find it very hard to believe that they would go to all that trouble if they didn't think there was at least some accurate information there.

Why are you making it about what I do or don't believe? That is not germane to the issue being discussed, which is whether something which can not, at the current time, given our current level of technology, be ascertained with 100% certainty as if it has been. Whether I believe in evolution or not has no impact on that issue. Although there may be SOME accurate information we have little chance currently of ascertaining what IS the accurate information and what isn't.

Because this whole thread is involved in trying to define skepticism.

If you are skeptical of the evidence presented in the documentary, whether or not it had input from the scientific community should make a big difference in how you perceive it. If however, you are using skepticism as a postion and believe that the evidence was "made up", then clearly it would make no difference who provided it.




I'm not sure that that is the issue we are discussing, If you go back to her original post she makes this strong statement:

"I don't care what science has come up with so far, its entirely limited in my book and any application of it to that length of history is a flat out hopeful guess. There is absolutely no way to prove it. So to offer it up as a theory is fine but I'm always going to question it."

She's not asking if it can be proven with today's technology, she's already made up her mind and says that it can't.

And for the record, if you go back through my posts you will see that my total focus has been on the documentary in question, and the valididy of the people and science that it uses.

Edited for format

Nothing I have said so far has given the slightest indication that this has anything to do with my spiritual beliefs. I have been speaking about this specifically from a scientific standpoint.


That's good, let's keep focusing on that.

Discussions like this have popped up quite a few times, I just don't understand it. Is your whole argument solely revolving around the fact that when scientists state something, they don't add a little disclaimer every single time saying "This might not be 100% true"? If that's what it is, I really don't see what you're bothered about. That single fact is hardwired in to science!

I mean really, I'm going to type "Scientific method" into wikipedia and see what comes up:



It should be well understood even among highschool students that a scientific theory is not fact, nor can it ever be "promoted" to fact.

What "should" be understood and what "is" are quite different, and to fail to do something simply because "everyone knows that's the way it is" doesn't wash in a court room, so why should it wash at all.

Then you shouldn't be here complaining about how scientists are doing it wrong, if you think it's a problem. You should be teaching the ignorant masses.

that is changing Raptor this is an excerpt from the charter my son is in and this is the movement of education at this time.. In our school science begins in kindergarten where atoms and basic understandings are brought to life.....They also feel a democracy begins by understanding the langauge of science...My sonis in 5th grade ans he is learning the latest in understanding the enviorment there is a new langauge now instead of the survival of the fittest construct it is reflecting the newer understandings words such as cooperation and congruency and interconnecteness have replaced the old language... the new enviormentalists are graduating from university now with a understnading that is teaching a resepct for our planet, how we do affect our planent and how to be responsible caring beings.... as never before .........

Excerpt below:

"K12 has taken the high road. We've developed a serious approach to science education, bringing together teams of scientists, teachers, writers, interactive designers, editors, illustrators, and more. These teams build compelling, engaging science learning environments based on interviews with groups of scientists to elucidate the "Big Ideas" that organize each discipline, based on breaking down important misconceptions gathered from the cognitive science literature, and, yes, based on state standards, too. Terrific interactive experiences, both off-line and on-line, make the sciences come alive, and in later grades we provide extended, multi-week investigation opportunities for kids to really experience the kind of "knowing" that goes into science.

Science, is an amazing blend of creativity and insight on the one hand, with rigorous investigation, discussion, and replication of implications from hypotheses – all of it built on the work of many using the same rigorous standards. The implications lead to cool stuff, useful stuff, stuff that saves and changes lives. What's not to like about science?"

A. They don't need to say "This might not be 100 percent true" but they could say Assume, we think, studies have shown, based on X we are almost certain that Y etc.

That's all I have been saying.


And for the moron the criticized my use of WIKI I only did so at the repeated request of people to SHOW them something by posting it on here.

I read BOOKS so the idea that googling evidence is a way to back up your case has always seemed pretty stupid to me.

Since I don't HAVE the books on hand to source I gave Wiki. SUE me. You can research Gould yourself then since its so well known.


Miss Mel's thank you doll. As one of the few intelligent women on this site I really appreciate that you understand what I am saying.


I'm out.

No that's just the way my mind works... I question everything it's just in my nature.

No science is a method and skepticism is just simply not believing everything you hear.

If we didn't doubt anything we would still think the globe was flat and that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Skepticism by default is to doubt what people say or hear etc. It is only with this doubt that we can use a said method to figure out what a said claim.

Your example is illogical too, a better example would be someone claims god exists and you doubt it or someone claims the world is flat and you doubt it.

If someone handed me a poem that for example i thought was stolen from someone else then i could doubt they wrote it etc.

Your example simply does not make any sense at all to be honest with you and you obviously never got the jib of my post.

You obviously don't read scientific journals.



You calling me a moron only shows your true ignorance. I stated that I am here to inform you and if you had any questions regarding evolution, I could help, and you should get it from a primary source, not one from wikipedia.

We're NOT talking about those sources where it's scientists talking to scientists, one would expect scientists to KNOW that there is no certainty in science. The problem is when scientists either through their words or even simply through their presence, give support to the idea among the general population that we DO know with absolute certainty.

Give up Iams when something is considered a sacred cow it becomes untouchable by criticism as we have seen here.

I've clearly presented my case. Not agreeing and pretending that something isn't happening are two entirely different things.



Now back to the actual topic of the thread SKEPTICISM Method or Position.



Atheist God I was talking tongue in cheek. I see what you are saying. But doubting everything you are told comes across as cynicism to me.

Doubting what doesn't seem right to you a different thing.

You don't have to be a scientist to read journals, subscribe to Science or Nature and you will see what I am talking about.

The difference between us is clear however. We do all the work for you yet you criticize us, telling us to piss off and resort to calling names (morons).

You take for granted every answer science provides. Would you like us to put a verbal stamp on everything we say? "We don't know gravity acts this way 100% of the time"

It should be implied that everything comes back to probability and the likelihood of it occurring. Science isn't Christianity. Science doesn't have a Bible that tells you that a ship took all of 2 million-100 million species in the world. (interesting how I gave an interval isn't it, in the context of this thread) Yet I don't see you criticizing it for stating it so clearly (or unclearly)

Yet you do for us. The people who help the world with new medication, new physics, and those who TRY to provide answers.

Your assessment doesn't hold any water. It is clear you brought this up because of your misunderstanding of science or nonacceptance for evolution (when it shouldn't even conflict with your beliefs anyway).

The point is, if you want to attack science for its uncertainties, then attack religion as well for all its fairytales and unproven statements, because they obviously make no attempt to answer questions about life.

DING DING DING We have a winner. This is EXACTLY precisely what I am talking about. Thank you so much.


This statement Mr. Scientist. is not a scientific statement. Go back and read and I have said over and over again that it no longer becomes science when emotion and religion come into it.

As you state SCIENCE isn't CHRISTIANITY. So why do you say I need to go attack religion for all its fairytales and leave science alone.

You know what. I DO. I DO attack Religion for its fairy tales. I am skeptical towards religion as well.

But Religion is not science. Science a totally different thing. And if Science has fairy tales ITS NO LONGER SCIENCE.

Suggesting that critics of science should Go away and pick on Religion is what is at the heart of the entire problem with the Evolutionary field. Its gotten an agenda that its MAD at religion.


I am sure that you will find some way to ignore the point that I am making yet again. And I do read science journals btw its why I posted some of them because I've noticed a difference in language when other fields of science is presented to the world. They don't make declarative statements. Only in the field of evolution have I seen that.

My sister is a Marine Biologist and her husband is a Phd in Biology. So I'm not getting myinformation off some stupid creationist website. Even SHE after years of saying NO NO NO has begun to see that Evolutionists are pushing an agenda. You can tell because THEY ALWAYS bring RELIGION into it.

Evolution is being pushed as the answer to the Creationists. It does have an agenda and so its slipping away from being science. This is why I am skeptical towards the field.

I didn't say to stop being skeptical, you are attacking evolution, not being skeptical about it. You don't attack religion on the same degree as you are evolution. That is clear.

Saying we are pushing an agenda is wrong. Anyone who says this isn't a scientist (your sister). Evolution and religion are talked about side by side not by us scientists, but by you. Theres a reason these topics are started by only religious members and not by others. Its clear that it is the elephant in the room here, so I brought it up.

Check your own post out bub. You are the one who brought up religion. And I guess you haven't read any of the works by Gould and Dawkins (You know THE GOD DELUSION) Evolutionists are CERTAINLY the ones bringing up religion.


And the denial of this is what is odd to me. Total blind spot in your own behavior. READ YOUR OWN POST!!!

This blind spot is what causes me to be more skeptical about evolution. I am not attacking evolution I am criticizing it.

But you take that criticism as an attack. And that is NOT what science is about at all. Science welcomes criticism. The fact that criticism is no longer welcome with regard to evolution is a real indicator that its not a science motivated field.


I don't attack Religion to the same degree that I attack Evolution, oh really. Why don't you do a topic starter check to see how many threads I have started about evolution compared to religion.

That's not a very scientific statement of you have made without doing any research. Anyone who knows me on here knows that Religion is my foil.

The difference is I'm allowed to criticize religion. I've never had anyone flame me for doing so.

He was talking to Iams


Of course not. Science evolves, it corrects its falses to make them as correct as they can with current technology and understanding. Science is capable of morphing around new findings and understandings.


Again, he was talking to Iams and not you, so no need to get emotional. Cimber made no statement of such a thing anyway. He was reffering to Iams' lack of skeptical thinking against stories that are impossible - yet only critizing sciences and never religious impossibilities.



Actual evolutionary sciences don't bring in religion - and no, Richard Dawkins is not a figurehead of evolution, but of moderate-extremist Atheists. If you're reffering to this board. Take a look at the thread name



Evolution has nothing at all to do with creation. Evolution (although obviously linked to) is not abiogenesis

I was mostly referring to Iamsson True, I apologize for not making that clear

Chokmah is entirely correct about Dawkins

He is a good scientist, but this is overshadowed by his evolution zealotry and anti-theism/atheism. While I am an atheist, I don't want to take the freedom away from others to be a theist. This is Dawkins' downfall.

The problem with being skeptical of scientific theories that have vast implications and 95% predictive validity (the other 5% being unknown) is that you're giving yourself permission to not base your attitudes on logic and fact. This opens the doors to all sorts of horrible behavior and prejudice.

My impression, for example, is that there are more bigots in the church than outside. I think part of the reason for this is that when you present a religiously oriented bigot with a study that shows that skin color has nothing to do with academic performance he can always say, "Well I don't believe in that study". No matter how much evidence you build up to the contrary he persists in his chosen belief because Belief has exactly the same status as Scientific Evidence,

Some of us do read science journals, and also read what are passed off as scientifically accurate popular magazines, which is why I am interested in this subject AND keep pointing out that there is a difference between those media which are directed at members of the science community and those directed at the lay public.

Look a little farther down in your post and you tell me the same thing. Sounds like you're losing your perfect vulcan-like unemotional, uninvolved, scientific objectivity there.

I do not, but you seem to think that you can KNOW what I'm thinking, again not very scientific of you, is it?

I think you're overall response is showing that some scientists have adopted science as their religion and defend any perceived attack on it as most religious zealots defend their religious beliefs.

No, I don't in fact, I hold this view BECAUSE I respect science.

The only thing that seems clear is that because you are perceiving this as an attack on your beliefs, you are unable to be objective and see that all I'm doing is pointing out that the way some things are communicated to the general public are inaccurate and that REAL scientists should be standing up and pointing out to the public just as loudly when they see that science is being either misused or at least miscommunicated.


I AM NOT ATTACKING SCIENCE OR EVOLUTION. I am pointing out that there are scientists or people who pass themselves of as scientists or are at least knowledgeable enough about science to be considered valid spokespeople for science by the general public who through the language they use are attempting to get the general public to believe that evolution is a 100% concrete no-question-about-it fact.

Why does me questioning science immediately mean I am attacking it. Science is SUPPOSED to question itself. Isn't that why we have peer-review? Isn't that why the Scientific Process DEMANDS independently verifiable experimental results? Isn't it all about questioning? Why do you feel so threatened by this? Or is it that since I am not a card-carrying member of the scientific community I am supposed to just be grateful that you scientists deign to come down from your lofty white tower every now and then and save me with your latest medical or technological discovery and never EVER question you?

Threads on a forum is far from science. Reviewing the effects of nutrient limited algal growth on kinetics is different from some person outside of science calling us morons. Scientific objectivity doesn't apply here.



Before you get your phd, you have to write a thesis. After you write your thesis, you have to defend it. The whole purpose of science is not only to ask questions but to also defend your position. That is what evolutionists are doing. They are defending their positions.



The hardcore scientists can't speak to the public. This is where the genius of Tyson and Sagan comes in. Good luck talking to a microbiologist about DNA transcription and translation at the highest levels (not the basic stuff you learn at high school). The great ones are the guys who can dull it down to a level where a regular non-scientist can understand.


The problem isn't about you questioning our data. The problem is that no matter what data we give, you will not accept it is happening. Your are questioning evolution in the general sense of the word. Science has moved passed this because it is happening. Only people who are clouded or just don't plain understand it are still questioning it. We have moved passed the general and into the specific questions. Look for my evolution thread that is lost somewhere on this forum for those questions.

How can he be a "good scientist" if its overshadowed by his evolution zealotry?

And thank you for finally admitting that one of the "good scientists" in the field of evolution is a zealot.


That is all I am trying to say. The fact that Evolutionary field seems to have a lot of zealots causes me to question that its an objective science.




BTW


Definition of Zealot is one who is zealous








Its interesting that you chose zealot to describe Dawkins because zealot is usually associated with religion which is why I say he comes across as pushing evolution as a new religion.


Now you can argue that "real" scientists don't do this but Dawkins is a "real" scientist. The argument is always that science isn't about this but I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee because when it comes to evolution YES IT IS.

And even if Iams DOESN'T criticize religion it doesn't mean he's automatically wrong when he criticizes evolution. One thing has nothing to do with another.

Let me repeat that again

ONE THING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.



Oh and one last thing. I didn't call "US" morons Cimber. Stop trying to rally backing by suggesting that I'm attacking scientists. I said you because you actually used that totally LAME way of dismissing my comment when I had been told for PAGES by people to post something.

Wiki might not be a valid resource but its a good starting point and if you NOTICE you will see that Leonardo couldn't access the Science Journal's I posted because you have to have a membership to see them. So I'm not using WIKI.

Although I agree with his wanting to teach people that religion should not be taken as literal truth - it's actually meant to be a spiritual truth. Not many understand the difference. - He takes a strong stance of, what seems to be, wanting of ridding of faith.

The great ones that did that told in a way that made it sound like it was a fact. So thank you for finally getting on what we are talking about.

No we ARE NOT. Reading comprehension must not be your strong point. We aren't questioning the data per se we are questioning the way that data is presented to the general public and the angry backlash towards religion that is coming out of the Evolutionary field of science.

Finally it seems we have a break through. I agree completely. And Gould wasn't much better and he was considered the voice of Evolution for a long time.

So you have two major figure heads behaving in very similar ways and its unnerving. This is what causes me to be skeptical towards the field.

He's a good scientist in his field. His downfall is that he uses his knowledge to attack religion and ridicule believers - Which I agree with to a point, most take religion as literal truth, not a spiritual (not many get the difference.) However, he goes as far as to want religion destroyed, which I don't agree with.

He uses his personal with evolution. Just because he's got a personal downfall doesn't mean he isn't a good scientist for his area.

Every thing has its personal agenda's. Dawkings is one of thousands in the evolutionary sciences. He doesn't speak for them all.
Taking your logic, all preists burn nuns on a crucifix.

"Now you can argue that "real" preists don't do this but mr.preist is a "real" preist. The argument is always that christianity isn't about this but I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee because when it comes to christianity YES IT IS."

See how easy that was. Now, christianity burn innocent people on a crucifix. Although I'm ignoring the other thousands of other preists who haven't done this, but because one did it must meaen they're all the same as him.

As I said earlier. Evolution, although linked to, is NOT abiogenesis.

Dawkings attacks the bible, not the god.

Hey true and Iams, fancy meeting you guys here......

I've missed you both so much.....

So objectivity does not apply when discussing the effects of poor and/or misleading communication?

Defend it from what? Other scientists questioning it or challenging it right?


I understand that it is difficult to speak to someone about the details of their field if you are not trained in it, I run into that as a simple logistician, but even though I can't speak with a non-logistician about the finer points of my field, I can communicate with them well enough to inform them when they are committing an error about my area of expertise. I figure if I, a simple expert in logistics, can somehow manage to get my point across to a lay-person, a scientist should also be able to, don't you?


The problem with this statement is that I am NOT questioning the data, I am questioning the interpretation of that data AND the communication of that interpretation as if it was a fully determine, concrete fact.

OK

I see what you are saying. Why is it that when Dawkins tours the country speaking and people are lined up to debate him you don't see the evolution field sending out people to set the record straight?

What I am saying is that again.....what I've said for pages........ that when a scientist states something publicly about science that the scientists agree with, they look the other way.

If there was a priest TODAY that burned a nun on a cross in the Western world on a public platform you can not tell me there would not be immediate backlash from the religious community.


Exhibit A The Westboro Baptist Church. When those "zealots" went around protesting there was immediate outcry from the religious community to say "This is not what our views represent"

If someone is out pushing misinformation about Evolution why is it that the field doesn't try to set the record straight.

BUT

But but but

If a scientist makes a statement that is misinterpreted and picked up by Creationists to back their claim they seem to come out of the wood work to set the record straight.

If you don't agree with Dawkings. Don't read his work. Read another evolutionary scientists work - ask Cimbers for another scientist, I don't really know any good evolutionary scientists of my head.

Or, read dawkings stuff but not his work on on evolution vs the bible.

Again, Dawkings is not an evolutionary figurehead. He's a moderate/extremist atheist figurehead.

True, I never disagreed with you. I don't agree with Dawkins. He is a good scientist, meaning his books are well written and have good evolutionary data. But I don't agree with his approach. He is an anti-theist. I want people to practice religion if they wish.

I chose zealot because that is what he is. It doesn't have to do with religion.

Don't listen to them if you wish. The whole reason I am on this board is to inform people about science. I don't usually post on any other subject.

There is a schism developing. You have to understand that it started not from us scientists, but from religious idiots like Hovind. They are misinforming the public about evolution. This is what causes science to defend its position.

This shouldn't be about religion vs evolution. There are plenty of evolution proponents on the side of religion. It doesn't conflict. I am having trouble writing this because I am completely losing what we are debating about. I think we are even on the same side of this issue. This should be about fanatical skepticism vs. healthy skepticism.

The fanatics are Dawkins and Hovind because they are stepping out of the realm of presenting information in an unbiased fashion. Hovind on one hand is just a complete fraud while Dawkins is a respected professional who has one a number of awards, but has a non-democratic ideology (anti-theism).

It isn't the scientists area to hold public meetings. They release papers for anyone to read, but not make public appearences. Some scientists do this, Dawkings for example, but it's not really any scientists area to hold public meetings about their findings. If they're hired or whatever, I'm sure they would. Although their papers are all thats needed if you're interested in the area.

The scientists may step in when it's been misinterpreted, wouldn't you if you said something and it was turned around to something it was not meant to be?

The preist burning a nun was recent-ish - click Which is where I got the comparison.

Exactly, if you want to examine Dawkins genius, read "Climbing Mount Improabable", "The Extended Phenotype", "The Ancestor's Tale", not "The God Delusion"

SO ARE THE SCIENTISTS


that's all we're saying. In this childish fight the scientists and the creationists are taking sides and then

ITS NO LONGER ABOUT THE SCIENCE


Do you see now what I'm saying.


I guess the reason I pay more attention to what the scientists are doing is because I expect more from them because....they are.....scientists.


I think we all SHOULD be on the same page. I am not the enemy of science. I respect it alot and I know Iams does as well.

All I am saying is that its veered very close in the Evolutionary field because of the zealots to no longer being an objective field.

I do not doubt evolution.

Sorry guys, but the "Well don't listen to him" line doesn't wash especially when you are saying it to someone who is obviously not listening to him, or at least not simply accepting what he says. This sounds too much of washing your hands of the whole deal. I think true brough up a good example with the Westboro Baptist Church. The Christian community did not just say, "Oh, they don't represent us" No, now at every funeral the Westboro people show up, there are several Christian churches and organizations who show up to oppose them.

Who specifically are you targeting then? You shouldn't limit yourself to scientists. You should target people like Hovind (who claims to be a doctor), for giving completely false information. Dawkins shouldn't be safe, however, at least he presents facts to his assessments. His attack on religion shouldn't be the reason scientific credibility is questioned.

I was talking to Truethat about her skepticism about evolution due to Dawkings.

Dawkings has an agenda against the bible, other evolutionary scientists do not.

I'm not washing my hands from him, I agree with many of his points - just not the destruction of faith - Niether I nor Cimbers claimed that Dawkings didn't represent evolution OR atheism. The difference is, he repersents moderate/extremist atheism alongside with evolution. Which is not what the majority of evolutionary scientists do - some evolutionists are religious, I'm saying this because evolution doesn't clash with religion. Evolution is NOT abiogenesis, although it IS linked to it obviously. Just as evolution could be linked to your god or anothers god.

If Truethat wants to learn more about Evolution, Cimbers - I'm guessing - can give her resources that are not based on a biased agenda - such as Dawkings is.

Uh I guess you missed this part


The case sparked an outcry in Romania against the "mediaeval'' practices tolerated by the Orthodox Church, to which a majority of the population belongs.


And this happened two years ago. The Westoboro Baptist Church is happening now, and they aren't just a random priest doing crazy things.

They are like Dawkins and his followers, a group going around aggressively pushing an agenda and the Christians are standing in their way saying "This isn't right"


I would as I have stated several times not care SO much about the scientists off in their chambers not getting involved IF

IF

IF
We did not see those same "can't be bothered" scientists immediately piping up if Creationists take their science the wrong way.

I'm not TARGETING anyone. I'm simply explaining why I am skeptical in regards to Evolution being an objective field.

I take issue with anyone giving false information. Two people doing wrong things don't cancel each other out. They are still both wrong.

True, its not that they don't want to be bothered, its that they physically can't communicate. Meaning they have NO communication skills. What Dawkins and Hovind do have is communication skills. They can appeal to people. If you ever heard them speak, you will understand that they use a number of oratory techniques in their lectures.



Can you please tell me what information you see is false, from the evolutionists side. This topic is 18 pages long.

Again, the whole reason I am on this board is to attempt to clear up any misunderstanding the general public has about science.

Oh man


You have GOT to be kidding me?


No Cimber I can't. How about that as an answer. I am tired of repeating myself. Both you and Chokman agree with my point even if you don't realize it.

You are both saying the same thing but since you've painted me as the enemy you are assigning things to me that don't exist.

Just reread. I don't know how much more simple I can make it.

Ironic factoid:

I would say that genetics is a principle part of evolutionary theory. Given the modern bickering about evolution vs. intelligent design, it's ironic to think that the father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was an Augustinian monk. He ended up being abbot of his monastery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Lol, we agree with you to a point. Hence why I and cimbers are still posting.

I'm also not arguing with you, so I have no idea where you came to the conclusion of being painted as an enemy

All we're saying is that if you don't like Dawkings, read another evolutionary scientists' papers. As I've already said, Dawkings has an agenda, most other evolutionary scientists do not

If your only reason for not wanting to understand evolution, is because you don't like one scientists methods, then that's a very sad ordeal you have. There are more scientists out there with unbiased papers - as in, not using it to target ID.

As I've said earlier, your same argument can be used against christianity - the priest burning a nun. However, even I see how silly that would be.

Iams,
Its pretty damn obvious you did not come here to examine skepticism as a method. Nor did you come to this thread use skepticism as a method for the things you are denouncing. You have yet to answer my question



As has true. You both are slippery and can very quickly bounce a subject around in circles. If you wish to be skeptical of evolution or geology then please explain why the methods used and the data gathered does not merit the interpretations it has. Otherwise you will sit here and continue to look as if you only taking a stance against these sciences, rather than examining them skeptically.

You can't question the methods, data and interpretations though a skeptical/critical informed manner if you do not understand it. If you can't point out the specifics of WHY, something does not fly, or WHY the science is inaccurate, therefore propagandized, then you are only taking a stance against it similar to the stance you claim others are taking against religion.

Mendel is not the father of genetics, he did not know what a gene was. Bateson was more of a father of modern genetics. Its also not really ironic that Mendel was a monk, considering the church, throughout history, has kept a tight clamp on the control of education. If you control education, it is very easy to dismiss work that goes against your ideology.

This is true, I dont know how many scientific journals True has read, but I have yet to see one that targets ID or religion.

The thing is this is not really addressing the issue. The issue is that either do to inability to communicate well, or due to a lack of interest, or--even more concerning--due to agreement, the scientific community is not policing itself when it comes to communication with the lay public.

Still obfuscating the issue true and I have been trying to address, it's not about not agreeing with science or even with evolutionary theories, the issue is how it is communicated to the lay public and the tacit agreement given by the scientific community to this miscommunication.

Bringing up the competing religion does not change the problem with yours.


Cam, the problem is neither of us is being skeptical of evolution, at least not in what we have been discussing here, we are skeptical about the way the science community communicates with the lay community about evolution, BIG difference.