So you’re upset that I was being sarcastic to a person who just called me and other people who accept evolutionary science brainwashed and frauds and has questioned my reading comprehension? Okay.
Also he had to step down from being moderator so I really need to change his title.
I agree. Especially as a moderator you have a big stick. No need to be sarcastic.
All you have presented are accusations with no evidence to back it up. Until you present evidence there is nothing to deny.
Okay. YEC creationism actually is saying evolutionism is not a theory of science. its an untested, relative, hypothesis. It is claiming to be a theory of biology but has no biology evidence. instead it has other subjects evidences as far as they go.
There is no evidence, bio sci, for evolution. or make your three top points. or one.
7 posts were split to a new topic: Why Todd Woods Matters
More probably scientists will forget the public claims they made and act as if whatever replacement is found is the consensus…
And turn failure into a virtue of how science self corrects.
Currently, even though Darwinism was falsified long ago, scientists don’t have a marketable story of evolution to take to the masses. As soon as they find one, Darwinism will be taken off the explanatory shelf.
Scientific communication to the public is not science… it’s about prestige and ego and being correct …
Did you read where Todd ALSO SAID he rejects Evolution because of Biblical concerns.
Have you tried to contact Todd? Sounds like he wished there was a way to embrace BOTH Evolution AND Special Creation!
You might as well be attacking Climate Scientists while you are at it.
You seem quite satisfied with the view that scientists have no intrinsic desire to teach truth … or to help the human condition.
Please remember that @swamidass himself is a scientist… and with a more opinion of your career track than you have of his!
This is an unfair comment.Obviously I am talking about scientists who go around talking about Darwinism as if it is accepted science.
How does this apply to scientists like @swamidass who are upfront in denying darwinism?
The modern theory of evolution is the accepted science. “Darwinism” can mean almost anything that people want, so it really isn’t a useful term. If you want to engage the theory that actually matters then you need to engage the theory that scientists actually use instead of the “Darwinism” strawman.
Just to be clear, the modern theory includes many, many mechanisms. These include, but are not limited to, neutral drift, random mutation, horizontal genetic transfer, hybridization, reticulation, niche construction, punctuated equilibrium, gradualism, natural selection, endosymbiosis, and many more.
Strange… then there should be no confusion among the public regarding “Darwinism” or whatever the real theory of evolution is.
Dont see why my comment should bug you.
I have found that the non-scientific public is often confused as to the theories that scientists use. This applies to nearly all fields, from quantum mechanics to cellular biology. This is why con-artists like Deepak Chopra can fool people with his quantum-woo nonsense.
I was simply pointing out that if you want to accurately describe what the scientific community accepts then you should refer to evolution, not “Darwinism”.
He is confused because the two of you are agreeing. Scientists shouldn’t call evolutionary science “Darwinism,” and most wouldnt’.
I think he agrees, but wants scientists engaging the public to follow those rules too. I agree.
Yes blame the non scientific population for how scientists communicate science… somehow people not being aware of anything other than Darwinism as model for evolution has nothing to do scientists.
The information is out there. They just have to seek it out.
Wow… and what about all the information presented to the public?
Interesting take on accountability… but then, scientists are not exactly accountable to anyone other than each other.
This is why I said what is presented to the public is not about science. It’s about pride, status etc.
You mean like this information from Wikipedia?
" However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish the modern evolutionary synthesis, sometimes called “neo-Darwinism”, from those first proposed by Darwin."
The modern synthesis replaced Darwinism in the early 20th century. It only took a quick Wiki search.
I think you have a habit of using the term Darwinism in a sloppy way. Does anyone defend Darwinism? Haven’t we all come to agree that neo-darwinism is the more proper terminology for Un-Guided E volutiin?
I don’t really know any scientist anywhere who teaches Evolution because of Ego.
Do you agree that Global Warming is a crucial human failing?