PBS Embarrassment: Ridiculing Scientists Who Are Asking Important and Interesting Questions
In response to a comment to this post about the PBS NOVA show "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design," I had this to say:
As has been noted elsewhere, much of the evidence for evolution at trial and in the show missed the point. ID proponents are generally not "anti-evolution" as they are portrayed. They acknowledge that at least microevolution is proven to occur, and that there is some evidence for macroevolution. They only say that some aspects of the biological world are better explained by design than by known natural causes, like random mutation and natural selection.
Did anyone at the trial give a full, complete, plausible account of how the bacterial flagellum could have come about solely through random mutation and natural selection? I think not.
The more important point is that these are the questions scientists should be asking, and it is only happening now because ID proponents are asking them and pointing out that the answers are not obvious. For this, the scientific community ridicules them and wants to ban them from scientific discourse. Is this how science should operate?
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 3:20 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
If Darwinism were built on a solid foundation of non-junk science, and its adherents fully understood it, they would not have so much venom for those who question their constructs. They would feel very secure and they would be able to patiently explain why their positions are perfectly rational.
Instead, they launch hysterical attacks that can only be born of deep-rooted insecurity.
They single out certain Christians who happen to be less versed in biology as the targets for their tirades. These Christians become punching bags because the Darwinists are not up to addressing the well founded questioning of highly credentialed scientists.
Hear, hear. A case in point is the contempt and, yes, hatred with which Michael Behe is treated by the "science" bloggers. Meanwhile Behe always responds to his critics in a patient and mild-mannered way. It's almost like he's confident that he's got the truth on his side, or something. I've found the responses he's made on his Amazon blog to be filled with brilliant thinking about crucial subtleties, something his sledgehammer-wielding foes seem completely incapable of.
Post a Comment
<< Home