Darwinian atheist stonewalling
Once upon a time scientists were supposed to be skeptical. Scientific theories, we were taught, were to be questioned. . . . .Scientists were to be objective, and to follow the evidence where ever it may lead.
Those days are gone — long gone. Misleading the public, covering up evidence, protecting theories — that is all standard fare today. We have now arrived at the sad state where evidence that is contrary to evolution — any contrary evidence — is not allowed. Consider this recent exchange between Yudhijit Bhattacharjee of Science magazine and evolution crusader Eugenie Scott:Science magazine: How has this battle changed in the past 20 years?
Eugenie Scott: The enemy has become more diverse. When I started, it was just creation science. Now we have creation science, intelligent design [ID], and straight-up antievolution in the form of "evidence against evolution."
Evidence against evolution? Is there something wrong with that? Yes, there is for evolutionists.
I have encountered Darwinian atheist stonewalling in my attempts to present my ideas about coevolution [link]. My presentations of those ideas have been met almost entirely with scoffing, impromptu just-so stories, bibliography bluffing (just aimlessly pointing to literature), general filibustering, and censorship. The bloggers at the Florida Citizens for Science actually banned me from posting my ideas about coevolution on their blog unless those ideas are approved by "experts" in advance![link] Who ever heard of such a thing? I could see the point of requiring pre-approval of my ideas if those ideas required some specialized, esoteric knowledge, e.g., knowledge of advanced mathematics, but my ideas about coevolution are easily understood by laypeople. The Darwinian atheists bury their heads in the sand because they can't believe -- or pretend that they can't believe -- that anyone could come up with reasonable criticisms of Darwinian atheism.
Labels: Intelligent design (new #1)