This oughta make 'em scream. It's today's article by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer entitled Climategate Recalls Attack on Darwin Doubters. It seems that Rick Santorum (see below) is not the only one drawing parallels between the currently popular fairy-tale for adults, AKA Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change and Neo Darwinism....
"There have been parallels cases where e-mail traffic was released showing Darwinian scientists displaying the same contempt for fair play and academic openness as we see now in the climate emails. One instance involved a distinguished astrophysicist at Iowa State University, Guillermo Gonzalez, who broke ranks with colleagues in his department over the issue of intelligent design in cosmology. Released under the Iowa Open Records Act, e-mails from his fellow scientists at ISU showed how his department conspired against him, denying Dr. Gonzales tenure as retribution for his views. To me, the most poignant correspondence emerging from CRU e-mails involves discussion about punishing a particular editor at a peer-reviewed journal who was defying the orthodox establishment by publishing skeptical research. In 2004, a peer-reviewed biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published a technical essay of mine presenting a case for intelligent design. Colleagues of the journal’s editor, an evolutionary biologist, responded by taking away his office, his keys and his access to specimens, placing him under a hostile supervisor and spreading disinformation about him. Ultimately, he was demoted, prompting an investigation of the Smithsonian by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel."
Isnt it wonderful that scientists can be held up and placed on a moral pedestal above mere mortals due to their overwhelming belief and unparalleled worship in the god of Methodological Naturalism Only? For an encore, dare we hope that they break out their pitchforks, torches and shovels to recreate their favorite scene from Frankenstein and run all of the design theorists away in the name of consensus rather than arguing each case on it's own merits?
6 comments:
I'll go first. Who was it? Reynold? I believe it was Reynold who posited that the idea of retaliation for holding an ID position in academia was so much poppycock. Am I right?
People who deny humans have any effect on the planet are generally ignored for the same reason biologists don't have time for creationists. Neither climate change deniers nor creationists come to the debate with anything but skepticism. No facts, no competing studies, no competing theories, no competing ideas to bring to the table at all, really.
Imagine someone trying to say the Bible is okay with homosexuality. Would you give them the respect of hearing them out, or would you merely point out the obvious Biblical evidence and move on, ignoring the rest they had to say on the matter? Sure, they'd deny your evidence and try to twist it to support their claim, but you know better and would certainly not change your mind simply because they are persistent.
So Meyer is a known liar and he doesn't disappoint here. JD, Reynold has already given you the links that expose the lies above about the treatment of Gonzalez and Sternberg - why am I not surprised to find that you either didn't read them or simply dismissed them? Further, Meyer's paper was not a case for intelligent design, but a bad argument against evolution - one that had been summarily defeated before publication, and has been found to be even more wrong after publication.
What GCT said.
People who deny humans have any effect on the planet are generally ignored for the same reason biologists don't have time for creationists
Ginx, you are over simplifying the matter by stating that those who see through the facade of good intentions yet shoddy research commonly referred to as "Climate Change" deny that humans don't "have any effect on the planet". Pollution comes to mind as an example. How do you define "Creationism"? How do you define Intelligent Design?
I'm lumping those who oppose the alteration of human activity in order protect our environment as a place habitable for human beings. I'm comfortable with that, since they tend to be one in the same [i.e. those who seek short-term economic gains for a limited few at the cost of future survival for all].
I have yet to find any scientific definition of Creationism or Intelligent Design, but I know both are predicated on the assumption that God is the root cause of life on Earth. In reality, just like those who oppose "Global Warming" or "Anthropgenic Climate Change," Creationist/ID adherents fail to provide any useful contribution to the sciences in which they completely lack understanding, yet feel qualified to critique.
Post a Comment