How to piss off a scientist

| 37 Comments

By now, most regular readers of this blog have probably seen PZ’s recent analysis of Berlinski’s latest screed on “Darwin’s theory”. As most of you undoubtedly saw, PZ was somewhat irked by what Berlinski wrote.

After reading the full text of Berlinski’s polemic, my first thought was that PZ’s response was actually quite understated. I’ve cooled off a bit since then, but I still need to vent a little, so I thought I’d share one of the things that is extremely irritating about Berlinski-like anti-evolution claims.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 25, column 705, byte 5124 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

37 Comments

I’m spending about a month to do research related to an interesting, but not revolutionary, account of a speciation event.

“But it’s still coral!!!!!”

“A mouse is a mouse,” The Creationist groused, “Even if they can’t interbreed.” Speciation: A miraculous word, For it mutates according to need!

I’d say it even more easily. The man is a liar, his goal is deceive. He knows there have been observed speciaiton events, he knows that for a fruit fly to change to a ‘not’ fruit fly would likely take far longer than human time scales, and is not any evidence against a speciation event. He knows that The Modern Synthesis, particularly phenomena involving mutation and genetics, was not and never has been part of “Darwin’s Theory’. The man is quite simply a liar. I’d happily tell him so to his face, in print, or on TV.

DAVID BERLINKSI YOU’RE A LIAR.

I need to make ten measurements on each colony, and there are approximately 100 colonies of each of the two potential species from each of three field sites. That’s a total of 6,000 individual measurements, each of which is made with a precision of +/- 0.05 mm. (That’s about 0.001”.)

But those measurements aren’t accurate to “thirteen unyielding decimal places”! Tut tut!

;-)

The immediate next question is: how are we failing in getting good science out to the masses? How are we letting people like Berlinski get the spotlight instead of the actual scientists who are everyday revolutionizing our knowledge of the world around us? What can be done?

But those measurements aren’t accurate to “thirteen unyielding decimal places”! Tut tut!

You’re right, it’s even better, 0.05mm is 0.00000000000005 Gigametres and those measurements will be accurate to the last decimal point ;-)

Come on Mike, “renewing culture” takes a lot more effort than you realize. Writing dishonest op-eds is only the first and easiest step.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. My friends wonder why I get so PISSED about ID crud and it’s exactly as you’ve written here. You’ve got thousands and thousands of scientists doing actual research and then a handful of creationists spouting off about how “there has never been shown ____” which is *exactly* what the thousands of scientists have shown thousands of times!

Ah Yes.

Well perhaps Berlinski should adopt the “Mr. Ed” theme song as his anthem.

I’ll try to be meaner and nastier in the future.

Other projects take more time. I recall spending 20 hours a week working on data that the lead researcher eventually figured out were irrelevant …

But I digress.

Speciation of fruit flies? Berlinski is wrong. They have speciated many times. Dobzhansky did a rather famous paper on it in 1966. Weiner has several pages on fruit fly speciation in The Beak of the Finch. The miracle of speciation has been observed, documented, written up, and studied for 60 years.

A friend who worked with drosophila mentioned that one of the problems in research these days is trying to keep the things from speciating in the lab. Research in some areas depends on being able to say the wild populations will be affected the same as the lab populations. Apparently more than one researcher has come to a conclusion in the lab, only to find they don’t apply to the wild population. The lab population had speciated, you see.

Berlinski’s piece is misleading, at best. He’s in error, perhaps honestly.

But how could he miss Dobzhansky’s paper from 1966? It’s not a difficult search. It’s mentioned in Weiner’s book, with solid bibliography.

Could it be that Berlinski is completely unfamiliar with the field?

No, I don’t think so, either. But the alternative is much less pleasant.

I, myself, am involved in the nuclear physics branch of science. There, I have seen a lot of this effect: When discussing nuclear power and why I think it is beneficial, I come across a number of people who are just simply opposed to it for ideological reasons. If I attempt to explain the science and engineering aspects that go into it, and talk about the history of not only nuclear safety, but explain the facts, and failings of the major accidents, and how those have been addressed. Usually all I get for my troubles is this type of response, “Well you’re part of the industry/elite, of course you would say those things, you are biased.”

It is nearly impossible to explain the facts to the point where they are listened to. When I “dumb them down” I get attacked for being too simplistic, but when I discuss them intellectually, I get attacked for being an elitist (or part of the industry).

The point being, it is impossible to explain the facts and the science to someone who doesn’t want to listen.

For evolution this problem is magnified 1000x because it is in addition viewed as a direct attack on personal religious views.

It is the catch-22 of explaining science to people that have pre-conceived ideologies against science. The only solution is to keep plugging away at it, keep talking to people, and keep trying to teach science to our children.

jeff-perado wrote

The only solution is to keep plugging away at it, keep talking to people, and keep trying to teach science to our children.

And also (I now think though I didn’t used to) call the professional paid liars like Berlinski and Wells on their lies, loud and clear and often.

RBH

Small wonder that so many people want to just throw up their hands and say to hell with it.

Fighting the introduction of ID in our school district cost a number of teachers (most significantly from my perspective - me) far too much time above the usual grading of papers, setting up labs, refining lessons, and coaching the school’s athletes, so that we could understand the arguments being thrown at us, who was doing the throwing (an actual ‘expert’ or just a guy with a degree) and figuring out how to catch them.

It cost us time, yes. Time in addition to all those activities, but more significantly time from our families (gee, it would have been nice to see that one ball game, the one my son’s team actually won).

Not only time, it cost us emotional and mental energy that by the time June comes around is usually in short supply anyway. You’d better not not have a pleasant and supportive approach to the 105 kids in front of you each day no matter what kind of hoop the creationist, self-serving parent has made you jump through; he’s been sure to point out that as a parent in the district he has the right to. Oh, never mind that one of the 105 kids is not his.

And let’s not forget that it cost us trust, trust between members of the faculty, between faculty and our local employers (the district office), between at least some parents, and at least some students.

And just when you considered that all of that time and effort had gone to a good cause; the district realized that including ID, and a ‘teach the controversy’ policy was a bad idea; as they say “just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water . … . .”

I’m sure it was ‘they’ who also said “not on my watch”

How to not piss off a pseudo-scientist.…

1) Don’t bow and scrape to the hours of work he has invested in this thesis. Instead state your objections to his thesis using logic even if you can do it in 5 hours.

2) Don’t treat him with kid gloves because he has an “emotional” response to a legitimate difference in opinion. His emotions should be given equal standing with the scientific method that requires predictions before the testing of those predictions.

3) Don’t DARE have a different opinion than him and his friends.…How DARE you…

Sorry, DK, take it elsewhere.

RBH: And also (I now think though I didn’t used to) call the professional paid liars like Berlinski and Wells on their lies, loud and clear and often.

I have often thought on how to do that. It doesn’t seem to work here on PT… DK is proof of that; the more detailed and factual you get, the sillier they get, until they reduce themselves to “I’m rubber and you’re glue…”

jeff-perado wrote

I have often thought on how to do that. It doesn’t seem to work here on PT … DK is proof of that; the more detailed and factual you get, the sillier they get, until they reduce themselves to “I’m rubber and you’re glue … “

DK isn’t in the league of those whose lies need to be called. He’s a flea. It’s the Berlinskis and Wells’s and their DI brethren, the public voices of anti-science, who need to be called on it. They get treated as pseudo-colleagues, faced in polite debates, as in Ohio in 2002, treated as though what they have to say is worth hearing, as Michael Ruse does. PZ did a good job in a venue that Berlinski obviously saw, and the President of the Kansas Academy of Science did it very nicely in the same venue Berlinski used. He perhaps did not use the vitriol that PZ did, but he did administer what one colleague called “a good old-time bitch slapping” to Berlinski’s nonsense. The response started off

In response to David Berlinski’s obvious falsifications of scientific information regarding evolution (“There are valid criticisms of evolution,” March 9 Opinion), I would reply:

More of that “obvious falsifications” (= lies) line would be salutory.

RBH

A famous example of this ilk I like to use is that of the “Face on Mars”. It took someone five minutes to spot a blurry face-like feature in one of the Viking Orbiter Images and maybe a few days or weeks worth of idle speculation to concoct a pseudoscientific theory about the existence of the ancient civilization on Mars that “created” it.

How many billions of dollars, millions of person hours did it take until it was possible for scientists to effectively debunk that wacky theory by supplying high-res photos from Mars Global Surveyor over 20 years later? (Of course, that wasn’t the only reason to go back to Mars, but MGS was specifically targeted to get those pictures.)

And what was the response from the “true believers”? A few accepted they were wrong, but other slung accusations of lies, deceit, incompetence and cover-ups at the hard working folks at NASA. It was sickening to hear.

Sound familiar? IDists will scoff at this comparison, but the parallels are striking, despited the seeming triviality of the Mars Face example.

As I’ve said before, it’s human nature to desire to be privy to some greater truth, but it’s also human nature to want to achieve that goal without having to work hard for it, if possible. Mars enthusiasts scan the daily images from the Mars Rovers looking for and “finding” all sorts of alien beasties and machinery just lying there waiting to be picked up. The truth is just so much more mundane and difficult (to them), with many more years of hard work and toil ahead before we can know for certain if even the simplest forms of life ever existed on the Red Planet.

As someone who has been brought up in a very creationistic world, I can understand exactly what you guys are talking about. You say that the more you try to explain the more the creationists question, but isn’t that the nature of science itself, to question until one finds an absolute answer (although I doubt any absolute answers on this topic will ever be discovered). I am a creationist, but I do take the advances of science into consideration of my opinion of the origin of earth. If science could undoubtedly prove evolution, would I have any choice but to believe it? I don’t believe so. So far I have found a loophole to every evolutionary theory that has been thrown my direction, granted I am not all-knowing and do not know every theory by heart and have not investigated every theory to its fullest extent, but I have found that creationism holds truer than evolution. I believe that scientists look and look for answers, when in some cases, there isn’t a scientific answer. The origin of the universe seems to be one of these questions. I believe every person needs to ask themselves one question; If undoubted evidence, and I mean absolute truth, were to be discovered that pointed in one way or another (either creationism or evolution), would you believe it? If you could not believe such a truth, then you are positively biased and prejudiced in one direction. I find it much more assuring and much easier to believe in creationism (I know I’ll get hounded for that statement…) because I believe it has more answers to some of these “unanswerable” questions. True, creationism cannot be proven scientifically, but that is its nature. To believe that God created the universe implies the belief that evolution did not exist, and vice versa. Both you and I know that our beliefs are not likely to change, but to discuss them will reassure both of our inner-selves that what we believe is correct. And yes, I do agree that Berlinski’s statement was ignorant because of his lack of true knowledge in the area, but to quarrel over such a statement that you and I both know is ignorant seems petty.

*When I said “I don’t believe so”, I meant that I would believe evolution if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

JBL

The nature of religion is protects me from your quandry. I follow the data because God made the data. I have no problem with evolution in concept except that those who preach it also preach athiesm and have a bully’s habit of picking on the uninformed. I am informed enough to know evolutionary judo counter moves.

In the future evolution may be completely discredited, genetics in particular will force a level of specificness on evolution that it may well not survive. But on the other hand it may prove that evolution is much more likely than previously proven and we may start a massive search for other life etc.

But the concept of God cannot be disproven. That is a faith issue.

Just as “I think therefore I am” cannot be disproven and relies on faith.

Likewise Natural Selection is a faith issue as it cannot be disproven in the abstract, only in specific instances.

JBL: evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the creation of the universe. Many scientists of various sorts, including biologists, have a belief in a creator God. But you would be hard pressed to find a working biologist who does not believe in evolution. The two subjects are totally separate: the origin of space-time is a profound metaphysical question about the nature of reality itself, which at some level is clearly impossible for science to settle; the origin of species by natural selection is a well-understood fact about something which goes on around us all the time (in this vanishingly tiny corner of reality), has been observed many, many times, and is not up for question at all.

DK: Perhaps you could debate how evolutionists preach atheism with devout Catholics like Kenneth Miller. But I doubt that would get you anywhere; you can’t make god-denyism out of a god-believer. Perhaps your “talents” would be better served in the guest preacher circuit of southern baptist churches in Knoxville, TN. They live on the myth that all evolutionist scientists are actually atheists.

But I have no idea what this has to do with the idea of evolution being false because it conducts meticuluous scientific experiments. Sure I will accept that there are theists who accept evolution and atheists who accept evolution. But one has to agree with David Heddle and his notion that the fine-tuning of the Universe suggests (not proves- nor even can be tested as) a creator. Not that there is any direct proof of a creator, it is not disprovable, and why we have our Kenneth Millers.

jeff-perado:

A slight correction, sir. One can agree with David Heddle and his “fine-tuning” idea.

I, for one, do not agree with him, and consider the appearance of fine-tuning as a mere (mis)perception issue (not unlike the appearance of our being at the centre of the universe).

JBL Wrote:

I believe that scientists look and look for answers, when in some cases, there isn’t a scientific answer. The origin of the universe seems to be one of these questions.

This is a good example of how easy it is to say something while it requires much more effort to understand the topic. As my background is close enough, I feel competent to make a comment about “the origin of the universe” issue here.

First, what is necessary to know before one might say anything about modern cosmology? The Big Bang theory is build on General Theory of Relativity. Without good understanding of GTR one should be very conservative about comments on the scientific nature of cosmology. However, it’s not as easy as to go and learn GTR, significant amount of both physical and mathematical background is necessary first - at least Classical Mechanics and Special Theory of Relativity on one side, Riemann’s Geometry on the other (along with some elementary differential/integrational etc. skills of course). After one is familiar enough with the structure of GTR, he might begin to concentrate on cosmology itself, that means to learn the various cosmological models and to make himself familiar with the available data.

One would then understand that there is not too much sense about discussing “the origin”, as the question itself contains prejudice about how the world works. More precisely, about the nature of time. Only when there is a universal definition of time you can talk about “the origin”. However, there is no such thing in GTR, it describes the universe as a four dimensional manifold (and that’s a precisely defined mathematical term, I can give the definition if anybody’s interested), where the time is only one of the coordinates. Coordinates on the manifold can be chosen freely, the perception of time as something special can be viewed only as our local preference which roots in the pseudo-Riemann metric of the manifold (which is reflected in the physical laws acting on the manifold and results in local causality). What we call “Big Bang” is a singularity in the solution of the Einstein’s equations (solution of EEs is a metric defining a manifold) which best fits the data. There is nothing special about that, singularities are very common in solutions of EEs, e.g. black holes contain a singularity too.

However, that’s not all. It is known that GTR is not valid in situations where gravitational quantum effects might appear, e.g. in extremely small distances. So while we can reconstruct the Big Bang very close to “the origin”, the singularity, we are not sure what’s closer. That means that there might be no singularities at the end. The problem is that we don’t have a Quantum Theory of Gravity yet. The best candidate is the Superstring Theory, but it’s still only a hypothesis. Various superstring inspired cosmological models has been constructed (worlds on branes) which open an exciting range of new possibilies.

So, while its true we might never discover everything about the nature of the universe, a claim that there is not a scientific answer to “the origin of the universe” made in 5 seconds without any further knowledge is completely irrelevant. On the other hand it’s a great illustration of the fenomenon described by Mike in this blog.

No disagreement on what PZ says about Berlinksi, but PZ can be not only mean and nasty, but also wrong. The rant on his website against John Hinderaker and the Powerline blog is mean, nasty, wrong, small minded, unfair, and uninformed. Hinderaker doesn’t buy the theory of evolution, which makes me sad, but he doesn’t ever say much about it and whatever he thinks of evolution it has nothing to do with the quality of his political commentary.

Koly Wrote:

First, what is necessary to know before one might say anything about modern cosmology? The Big Bang theory is build on General Theory of Relativity. Without good understanding of GTR one should be very conservative about comments on the scientific nature of cosmology. However, it’s not as easy as to go and learn GTR, significant amount of both physical and mathematical background is necessary first - at least Classical Mechanics and Special Theory of Relativity on one side, Riemann’s Geometry on the other (along with some elementary differential/integrational etc. skills of course). After one is familiar enough with the structure of GTR, he might begin to concentrate on cosmology itself, that means to learn the various cosmological models and to make himself familiar with the available data.

Gee, this makes me think about all those who say we should “teach the controversy” to those who have not yet learned the basics–how can we expect them to understand the “controversy” at this stage?

In case anyone still has doubts, here is a brief list of speciation/evolution within Drososphila.

Also, Drosophila are not fruit flies. If you want to learn about fruit fly speciation, I suggest you start here.

Also, Drosophila are not fruit flies.

Well, who are you going to trust: Merriam-Webster, or some guy from Texas named Bush?

If you have the stomach for it, you can read David Berlinski’s response to PZ on the Discovery Institute’s Media-Complaints web-page (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/bl[…]ndex.php/all)

Mike Dunford,

Where does the funding for your project come from?

Ken Willis said:

No disagreement on what PZ says about Berlinksi, but PZ can be not only mean and nasty, but also wrong. The rant on his website against John Hinderaker and the Powerline blog is mean, nasty, wrong, small minded, unfair, and uninformed. Hinderaker doesn’t buy the theory of evolution, which makes me sad, but he doesn’t ever say much about it and whatever he thinks of evolution it has nothing to do with the quality of his political commentary.

I fail to see how PZ’s rant is wrong or unfair. It is well informed, to begin with – which rather rules out the rest of the complaints.

Mr. Hinderaker justifies his opinions against science on the basis that … well, just because. His unwillingness to look at the facts also plagues the rest of his commentary, especially on politics, it seems to me.

Political decisions are often made with less than the best information, but rarely are good ones made that way.

My experience in Washington was that those who refuse to acknowledge the facts in one area most often could not be trusted in other areas. If they had areas of trustworthiness, those places were unpredictable – and so their commentary, or advice, or votes, should always be treated as accidentals.

I’m biased – I studied to be professional journalist – but I think those who hold themselves out as expert commentators have a duty to strive for accuracy. When confronted with error, I think a sage journalist has a duty to make notice of correction. For lawyers, I think that duty is amplified, even outside the courtroom.

Consequently, I am deeply troubled by Mr. Hinderaker’s errors and refusal to correct them. Though he writes on evolution not very often, he writes inaccurately and leaves false impressions. And he refuses to acknowledge either error or the possibility of error, in my correspondence with him.

If Hinderaker doesn’t “buy” evolution, let him say so. His presumption in criticizing scientists and Constitutional lawyers who study and fight for evolution is not justified by his not understanding the issues.

Let me start of by saying I am not an experienced Blogger, so please forgive what will probably be an ugly post that repeats what has been said elsewhere. :) As a former creationist fundamentalist I am unfortunately familiar with the mindset of the IDers and how they reinforce their misinformation in the minds of believers. One thing the ID leaders like to do when they write something for the mainstream media is use phrases that mean one thing to their followers and another to scientists. For example, when Berlinski says that the “fruit flies remained fruit flies” a biologist immediately thinks he is talking about speciation and sets about refuting him. However, he is actually referring back to the old YEC argument about “kinds” which is used to explain how Noah got all those animals in the ark. Creationists are familiar enough with this argument that Berlinski doesn’t have to state it explicitly. Now it has mutated into a defense against examples of speciation by changing the definition of microevolution and species and pretending that there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution other than time and degree.

Berlinski does this all of the time. For example in The Deniable Darwin http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/d[…]rwin0696.htm he writes in support of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument, but doesn’t state so explicitly. He leaves it up to the interpretation of his readers.

And as has been pointed out extremely well in many of the posts I have read at this site, ID itself is not stated explicitly, leaving the door open for believers to fill in the blanks themselves while avoiding any testable claims.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention the “kinds” argument to point out that examples of speciation are not going to answer the misdirection that Berlinski is performing.

Also people really are out there reading posts and realizing what psuedoscientific nonsense Intelligent Creationism is, (I did myself), so keep up the good work.

Good comments, Notorus. One has to remember well just who is talking to whom in these matters, and how. What is interesting in reading Berlinski is how he really swallows the creationist/ID arguments, and takes them in all of their anti-science spins and misinterpretations. Then when he’s mistaken for being a creationist, he writes like it is some great mistake.

Still, it is no mistake for biologists to think that Berlinski is writing about speciation, for he explicitly writes: “…all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.” For context, here’s the whole paragraph (after the “look”):

“Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.”

I’m not disagreeing with you (much), however, for what he’s doing in the above paragraph is equivocating. He begins his “argument” with, well they’re all still just fruit flies (never mind nomological complaints over “fruit fly” and Drosophila), then he equivocates by bringing in speciation, as if speciation would mean that what had been a fruit fly population would no longer be a fruit fly population once it had become another species.

That is to say, he seems to know pseudo-scientific scoring points much better than he knows biology, or how to use words properly in science.

To be sure, no actual species (as “species” is defined) has been made in the laboratory. This is partly because species are substantially defined as not producing viable hybrid populations in the wild–it is well understood that species in the wild may not be identifiable as species in the laboratory. So how is anyone to ever know if fruit flies in the lab could be considered species, considering that the very environment precludes identification of lab strains as constituting species?

Another ill use of words, just in that one paragraph.

Of course, even many creationists concede that the many Drosophila species found in Hawaiian niches constituting a few tens of acres, or perhaps a few square miles, are the results of speciation events. But Berlinski’s apparent lack of knowledge, and willingness to rely on IDers and the like for his “biological knowledge”, has improperly set the “test” of speciation being the laboratory setting. Thus he can feel vindicated in his claim, just so long as he continues to fail to understand biology.

Btw, since no one has said it either here or on PZ’s site (not that I remember, at least), one of the most egregious examples of Berlinski’s tendentious style is where he writes:

“The suggestion that Darwin’s theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences…is grotesque.”

Now I don’t deny that QED theory is substantially different from evolutionary theory. What is obnoxious in the extreme is Berlinski’s contrast of evolutionary theory with theories “in the serious sciences”, as if biology is not a serious science. The fact of the matter is that Berlinski’s writing is no more decent or polite than PZ’s (not IMO, anyway), for it uses such underhand jibes in order to insinuate what could hardly be upheld explicitly. But don’t forget that Berlinski’s style will nonetheless go down much better among the fence-sitters than will PZ’s.

I’m not going to praise PZ’s rant, however. While it was better informed than Berlinski’s piece, his mistake over Berlinski’s supposed support for astrology (which in fact appears to be a benighted “analogy” between the two supposedly faulty sciences, astrology and evolutionary theory), plus the deliberately immoderate language, leaves Berlinski open to make his non-reply. Would Berlinski have rendered an appropriate response otherwise? I doubt it, but he wouldn’t have looked as good giving a non-reply had PZ written with the same sort of language.

I’m not condemning PZ’s blog, either. What’s a blog for if not to let loose with some choice words? There isn’t anything necessarily wrong with a piece for the “campaign workers”, but what concerns me is that there may be few other responses to Berlinski’s cut-and-paste creationist-styled op-ed piece which might press Berlinski to make a response–or make him look like a wimp for not responding. I responded to it on ARN, plus this little bit here, but I know that he can ignore what I say. He can’t fault it, just ignore it all.

The trouble with PZ’s response is that it is one of a very few that could have been informed enough, and to have enough media presence, to make Berlinski look bad for what he’d written. And probably it still does among the science-minded, but I have the feeling that his response must go down quite well among the IDers (who, granted, are a lost cause) as well as many fence-sitters. Opportunity lost, I fear.

Not to mention that biologists in one sense have the harder subject than physicists (a few dozen elementary particles) or chemists (116 elements currently regarded as discovered), what with millions of species known and unknown.

Henry

Jeff-Perado

There are two camps in evolution

1) The camp similiar to what believers in god would have. There is data that seems to point to evolution being true. There are serious holes when gaps in species exist but the overall framework is very consistent with the evolution theory. The evolutionary theory has no evidence that precludes another solution and relies on being the only scientific theory for its credibility rather than an ability to predict future discoveries or an ability to predict future results in a controlled enviornment. Because of the great difficulties in determining what happened in the past without being able to effect the process while it occurs evolution has been unable to meet the same criteria that forward looking science is held to and as such does not have the same weight as gravity or another aspect of science that is understoon well enough to PREDICT future results.

2) Evolution is FACT. All scientists believe in evolution in its present form. Evolution has never changed from its present very limited scope of claims. Evolution is totaly unrelated to the abiogenesis question etc etc etc.

Camp 2 is pretty much athiests with a religious bone to pick. Because camp 1 is where the real science is. Camp 2 is dishonest on a scientific level and the creationists have every right to keep it out of their schools.

DK: what about this.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mike Dunford published on March 15, 2005 6:32 PM.

The Kraken Wakes was the previous entry in this blog.

Swallow Hard Fred, its a caterpillar! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter