Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?

[PoliticalChic]

You know, PC? You are politicizing science with this crap.

I hate that.

And, although I often agree with your politics, keep them out of science. You are no better than the warmers who say the science is settled.

Sorry, but out of principle, I have to neg you.

Don't soil science with fucking politics.

BTW......friend Rocks' love of AGW is more proof that there is no separation between science and politics.

So you're implying that AGW is inherently political. That somehow, the evidence doesn't support AGW, even though a vast majority of the scientific community believes it does. Yet, you know better... interesting.

" Yet, you know better... interesting."
Yup!.
See...perhaps you are capable of learning!!

1. The very paucity of evidence to support the terrifying global alarmism, the environmental Armageddon, is the best evidence for the lack of rationality, and, by the same token, the supremacy of ideology, in the scientific community.

a. In a 2003 poll conducted by environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research in Germany, about a quarter of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that “the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.” About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers. Are climate change investors living in a fool’s paradise?

b. Most people do not realize that Earthly temperatures have been appreciably higher than today many times in the past, and also lower. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was as much as 3 degrees Celsius warmer than now. Eleven thousand five hundred years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long “Younger Dryas” cold episode, temperatures rose about 5° C in a single decade – that is nearly 100 times faster than the 20th century’s 0.6° C warming that climate campaigners believe is a precursor to catastrophic global warming. Ibid.



2. What happened to the truth?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.




 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’ http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf

Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.

d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”
Melanie Philips, "The World Turned Upside-Down"



Political power and global governance....not science.

Get it?

 

[Si modo]

You know, PC? You are politicizing science with this crap.

I hate that.

And, although I often agree with your politics, keep them out of science. You are no better than the warmers who say the science is settled.

Sorry, but out of principle, I have to neg you.

Don't soil science with fucking politics.

BTW......friend Rocks' love of AGW is more proof that there is no separation between science and politics.

And I neg him when HE politicizes science, too.

Duh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know, PC? You are politicizing science with this crap.

I hate that.

And, although I often agree with your politics, keep them out of science. You are no better than the warmers who say the science is settled.

Sorry, but out of principle, I have to neg you.

Don't soil science with fucking politics.

BTW......friend Rocks' love of AGW is more proof that there is no separation between science and politics.

And I neg him when HE politicizes science, too.

Duh.

'Duh' is right.


To do that for a difference of opinion???



You may believe that is in support of science....but in reality is is merely dogmatic.

You understand what dogmatic mean, don't you? 'forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable.'
dogmatic - definition of dogmatic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

As in, punishment if you dare to disagree.

Disappointing.

 

[konradv]

AGW alarmism may be political, but the basis of the theory isn't, as it was postulated long before the political wrangling started. If its become overly politicized that would seem to be the fault of the deniers, since they often either ignore the science or just cherry-pick their favorite parts to "prove" there's some sort of political deviancy inherent in the other side, even when nothing but basic scientific facts are being discussed. For example, I could start a thread showing how in the lab bubbling water with CO2 will lower the pH and inevitably someone will say I'm out to destroy capitalism.

 

[Si modo]

BTW......friend Rocks' love of AGW is more proof that there is no separation between science and politics.

And I neg him when HE politicizes science, too.

Duh.

'Duh' is right.


To do that for a difference of opinion???



You may believe that is in support of science....but in reality is is merely dogmatic.

You understand what dogmatic mean, don't you? 'forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable.'
dogmatic - definition of dogmatic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

As in, punishment if you dare to disagree.

Disappointing.

Politicizing science has nothing to do with an opinion. This is exactly why I say you are clueless about what science is.

Politicizing science is a deliberate act by those who do not care about the integrity of science. In addition (and as you obviously cannot be bothered to read), the logic of scientific discovery and the scientific method eliminate politicization. But that is when SCIENCE is done by SCIENTISTS, and not activists.

You and too many others soil it. You want science not to be politicized? Then it's easy. Stop doing it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And I neg him when HE politicizes science, too.

Duh.

'Duh' is right.


To do that for a difference of opinion???



You may believe that is in support of science....but in reality is is merely dogmatic.

You understand what dogmatic mean, don't you? 'forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable.'
dogmatic - definition of dogmatic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

As in, punishment if you dare to disagree.

Disappointing.

Politicizing science has nothing to do with an opinion. This is exactly why I say you are clueless about what science is.

Politicizing science is a deliberate act by those who do not care about the integrity of science. In addition (and as you obviously cannot be bothered to read), the logic of scientific discovery and the scientific method eliminate politicization. But that is when SCIENCE is done by SCIENTISTS, and not activists.

You and too many others soil it. You want science not to be politicized? Then it's easy. Stop doing it.

Of course, that is not true.

From post #161 above ( as you obviously cannot be bothered to read):

2. What happened to the truth?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.





The following, as well, eviscerates your self-serving post:

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?

Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?

“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”
Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?
Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?
Read the article @ http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/29/s...t-meteor-extinction-idea.html?&pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/29/s...t-meteor-extinction-idea.html?&pagewanted=all


Have I proven the point?

I'm satisfied to leave it to readers of our respective posts.

 

[Si modo]

'Duh' is right.


To do that for a difference of opinion???



You may believe that is in support of science....but in reality is is merely dogmatic.

You understand what dogmatic mean, don't you? 'forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable.'
dogmatic - definition of dogmatic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

As in, punishment if you dare to disagree.

Disappointing.

Politicizing science has nothing to do with an opinion. This is exactly why I say you are clueless about what science is.

Politicizing science is a deliberate act by those who do not care about the integrity of science. In addition (and as you obviously cannot be bothered to read), the logic of scientific discovery and the scientific method eliminate politicization. But that is when SCIENCE is done by SCIENTISTS, and not activists.

You and too many others soil it. You want science not to be politicized? Then it's easy. Stop doing it.

Of course, that is not true.

From post #161 above ( as you obviously cannot be bothered to read):

2. What happened to the truth?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.


The following, as well, eviscerates your self-serving post:

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?

Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?

“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”
Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?
Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?
Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com
DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com


Have I proven the point?

I'm satisfied to leave it to readers of our respective posts.

WHAT is not true?

(You'll likely avoid answering that question, too, just like you did the last question I asked you.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Politicizing science has nothing to do with an opinion. This is exactly why I say you are clueless about what science is.

Politicizing science is a deliberate act by those who do not care about the integrity of science. In addition (and as you obviously cannot be bothered to read), the logic of scientific discovery and the scientific method eliminate politicization. But that is when SCIENCE is done by SCIENTISTS, and not activists.

You and too many others soil it. You want science not to be politicized? Then it's easy. Stop doing it.

Of course, that is not true.

From post #161 above ( as you obviously cannot be bothered to read):

2. What happened to the truth?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.


The following, as well, eviscerates your self-serving post:

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?

Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?

“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”
Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?
Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?
Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com
DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com


Have I proven the point?

I'm satisfied to leave it to readers of our respective posts.

WHAT is not true?

(You'll likely avoid answering that question, too, just like you did the last question I asked you.)

What is not true is your contention that politicizing of science is not done by scientists.

In fact, the behavior that you suggest that you despise, "dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers," is exactly what you do with neg reps.

Forming a hypothesis is the basis of the scientific method.
Attacking the person who states one is hardly scientific.

 

[Si modo]

Of course, that is not true.

From post #161 above ( as you obviously cannot be bothered to read):

2. What happened to the truth?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.


The following, as well, eviscerates your self-serving post:

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?

Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?

“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”
Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?
Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?
Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com
DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com


Have I proven the point?

I'm satisfied to leave it to readers of our respective posts.

WHAT is not true?

(You'll likely avoid answering that question, too, just like you did the last question I asked you.)

What is not true is your contention that politicizing of science is not done by scientists.

In fact, the behavior that you suggest that you despise, "dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers," is exactly what you do with neg reps.

Forming a hypothesis is the basis of the scientific method.
Attacking the person who states one is hardly scientific.

I never contended that.


YOU are, though. Stop.

 

[PoliticalChic]

WHAT is not true?

(You'll likely avoid answering that question, too, just like you did the last question I asked you.)

What is not true is your contention that politicizing of science is not done by scientists.

In fact, the behavior that you suggest that you despise, "dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers," is exactly what you do with neg reps.

Forming a hypothesis is the basis of the scientific method.
Attacking the person who states one is hardly scientific.

I never contended that.


YOU are, though. Stop.

Stop what?

Disagreeing with you?

 

[Matrixx8]

1. A major difference between scientists and the religious, is the insistence on ‘facts,’ which is what science demands. After all, how scientific would one be if he began with his conclusion…and searched for ‘facts’ to support same?

I agree but, to start, allow me to congratulate for your desperate attempt to reanimate obsolete arguments and on your neverending pursuit of beating the dead horse of creationism.

2. Now, take Darwin, and the theory of evolution. We are often told that the reason said theory won the day was that it fit the facts. Not according to historian Neal Gillespie.

Did you bother to read your own link?

Darwin (according to Gillespie) operated with a methodology that came to be known as "actualism," whereby the existence of uniform and lawful causes of phenomena in nature are assumed.
...
It is in this context that Gillespie refers to the quote, as follows (p. 62-63):
Darwin's application of these principles to particular scientific problems seems to have taken shape in the early period of his species work and to have changed little in later years.Surrounded by "inductionists," he was not always confident of the propriety of his practice.
...
Gillespie, whose book is otherwise quite good, certainly put the context of the quote clumsily, especially in saying it came "on the eve of the publication of the Origin", when it was nearly two a half years before the publication date, November 24, 1859, and before Darwin ever wrote about his theory to Gray.
...
Gillespie definitely appeared to make a connection between the Origin and the quote.
...
That Gillespie was a bit sloppy, however, is no excuse for creationists to seize upon it without checking and blow it out of proportion.

A little cherry picking goes a long way.

a. “The most extensive research into Darwin's religious attitudes and motivations has been done by historian Neal C. Gillespie (Georgia State University).He begins his book with this comment: "On reading the Origin of Species, I, like many others, became curious about why Darwin spent so much time attacking the idea of divine creation." Business Profiles and Company Information | ZoomInfo.com

IMHO, if you want to attack Darwin using creationist arguments, you might want to update your argument to include modern NeoDarwinism.

b. Positivism: a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences. Positivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Update: Add the scientific method.

3. Historians have documented meticulously the fact that Darwinism has had a devastating impact, not only on Christianity, but also on theism. Many scientists also have admitted that the acceptance of Darwinism has convinced large numbers of people that the Genesis account of creation is erroneous, and that this has caused the whole house of theistic cards to tumble: As a result of the widespread acceptance of Darwinism, the Christian moral basis of society was undermined. Furthermore Darwin himself was "keenly aware of the political, social, and religious implications of his new idea. . . . Religion, especially, appeared to have much to lose . . Raymo, “Skeptics and True Believers,” p.138.

While many can rejoice at this, what does it have to do with evolutionary theory?

4. Acclaimed Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins has written extensively about the implications of Darwinism. In a speech titled "A Scientist's Case Against God," Dawkins argued that Darwinism "has shown higher purpose to be an illusion" and that the Universe consists of "selfish genes;" consequently, "some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason for it"
Easterbrook, Gregg. 1997. "Of Genes and Meaninglessness." Science, 277:892, August 15.

Dawkins is philosophizing. Have you actually ready any of Dawkins' books or are you just repeating creationism talking points? For example, what is Dawkins' advice for humans faced with the biological dilemma of selfish genes?

a. Ironic, isn't it that 'evolution' is a keystone of Liberalism, yet the highest goal of same is 'equality.'

Evolutionary theory is about nature, not politics.

5. The central message of Richard Dawkins' voluminous writings is that the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if it has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference" (Easterbrook, p. 892).
Dawkins even admitted that his best-selling book, The Selfish Gene, was an attempt to get rid of what he regarded as an "outright wrong idea" that had achieved a grip in popular science—namely, the erroneous "assumption that individuals act for the good of the species," which he believes is "an error that needed exploding, and the best way to demonstrate what's wrong with it . . . was to explain evolution from the point of view of the gene" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins added that the reason why The Selfish Gene was a best seller could be because it teaches the "truth" about why humans exist, namely humans,. . . are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life. One man said he didn't sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that the whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had a point (quoted in Bass, p. 60).

And do you have evidence that would suggest a different purpose for living organisms?

a. Dawkins obviously is proud of the depressing effect his writings have on people. Raymo even claims that the dominant view among modern Darwinists is that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" (pp. 187-188), and that "almost all scientists" believe the idea that a human soul exists is a "bankrupt notion"; and consequently, the conclusion that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" is considered by Darwinists "almost a truism" (pp. 192-193, emphasis his).

Depressing? Obviously, you haven't read Dawkins' books. From Unravelling the Rainbow:

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?" – Richard Dawkins

What higher purpose could you want?

6. Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis (Shallis, "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43) argues that: “It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . . This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion .”

This academic source begs to differ with your characterization of creationism. The title of the lecture is intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science, Bad Philosophy.

a. Darwinists have indoctrinated our society for over 100 years in a worldview that has proven to be tragically destructive. And they often have done this by a type of deceit that began before the Piltdown hoax and continues today in many leading biology textbooks (Wells, Jonathan. 2000. Icons of'Evolution: Science or Myth. ).

Admirable effort, Political Chic.

If I understand your position correctly, the following paraphrase of a famous quote sums it up quite nicely (with apologies to Martin Luther):

“Science is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”.

 

[Matrixx8]

You left off: The Earth is flat.

Just came across this. A truly brilliant understatement.

 

[Si modo]

What is not true is your contention that politicizing of science is not done by scientists.

In fact, the behavior that you suggest that you despise, "dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers," is exactly what you do with neg reps.

Forming a hypothesis is the basis of the scientific method.
Attacking the person who states one is hardly scientific.

I never contended that.


YOU are, though. Stop.

Stop what?

Disagreeing with you?

Antecedents seem to confuse you quite a bit.