No, it's the interpretation and data correction that has a liberal bias.Facts and scientific data have a liberal bias.
Evolution is just a theory that may prove to be wrong. Creationism? In the pure form as believed of in dogma I would say is clearly wrong. However, I'm not going to rule out intelligent design, but because of statistics or bias.Well yeah, because Conservatives still argue "evolution is 'just a theory'" and argue for creationism. I guess when you sink that low in the intellectual field(s)...
Otherwise known as "reality".
Evolution is just a theory that may prove to be wrong. Creationism? In the pure form as believed of in dogma I would say is clearly wrong. However, I'm not going to rule out intelligent design, but because of statistics or bias.
Evolution could be wrong but it is highly unlikely given the overwhelming amount of evidence to support it and none yet presented to the contrary. What do statistics / bias have to do with ID?
Just because in our understanding of the unknown, we believe in something, that doesn't make our belief 100% fact.
Today, we would be like Gods to ancient cultures. We are increasingly closer to creating different species in genetics. Rumors of past Gods. What if the myths we have aren't just stories, but based in facts of the past?
Bottom line is, we don't know. A true scientist doesn't rule out other possibilities, but supports his theories by definitively ruling out all other possibilities. Nobody can say Intelligent Design is ruled out, especially the concept the ID might actually be a process of guided evolution.
So far, experimentally, abiogenesis is looking much stronger of hypothesis than ID ever though about being.
I agree, and I'm not saying ID is strong. I'm only pointing out it cannot be ruled out.
What world do you live in?
I agree, and I'm not saying ID is strong. I'm only pointing out it cannot be ruled out.
Really?:lamoHeres a nice example from the journal Science. For those who dont know, Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the worlds largest general science society. Its about the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, about on par with what the Royal Society in England was in the 19th century, and being elected as a fellow in the Society is one of the highest honors you can get in a scientific career. Science is one of the top interdisciplinary journals in the world, along with Nature.
This month they have a special issue on climate change.
The initial introductory paragraph says:
Once and Future Climate Change
ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW A PART OF OUR REALITY. EVEN THE MOST
optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that
mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this
century and that CO2
emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of
years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect
global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special
section of
Science
focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of
climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge
of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve
predictive power.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/472.full.pdf
Notice. This paragraph does not mention that this is in any way controversial. It doesnt use qualifiers, it straight out says that CO2 emissions will affect the climate. Period. This is what a consensus means. Its a commonly understood fact by all. If fact, its so strong, that an entire Science issue (an interdisciplinary journal) has been devoted to it. Nature, another journal, actually has an entire subjournal called Nature Climate Change
I cant think of any clearer evidence of consensus than this. Note the date - this came out today, August 2nd, 2013. So pretending that things are somehow 'changing' is wrong. Its consensus as of this afternoon.
You're sure laughing a lot today. Hope the rubber room is treating you well. I guess if you're typing that means they removed the restraints.
I'm sure an open letter from a guy who has no science background berating the editor of the AAAS flagship journal will be noted for what it's worth.
Here's Willies qualifications, BTW.
Willis Eschenbach | DeSmogBlog
Just pointing out that you can't wish consensus into existence.eace
When you talk about consensus, it means among scientists, not wannabes.
So?You're sure laughing a lot today. Hope the rubber room is treating you well. I guess if you're typing that means they removed the restraints.
I'm sure an open letter from a guy who has no science background berating the editor of the AAAS flagship journal will be noted for what it's worth.
Here's Willies qualifications, BTW.
Willis Eschenbach | DeSmogBlog
Well yeah, because Conservatives still argue "evolution is 'just a theory'" and argue for creationism. I guess when you sink that low in the intellectual field(s)...
It's getting close. The more ground abiogenesis gains, the more ID loses. To my knowledge, ID research is not even being conducted, even by Behe or Dembski.
OF COURSE it can't be ruled out.
Neither can we rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster being the master designer.
It's not science when you assume the initial origin is magic.
When you talk about consensus, it means among scientists, not wannabes.
What caused the Big Bang?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (its actually the Big Boil Theory).
Why do people continually compare real sciences to AGW Science?
It's like comparing a favorite performance of music to a howling pack of dogs.
Just playing Devil's advocate here, but who is to say that the the Intelligence that made the design did not design in adaptability?
What caused the Big Bang?
Are you saying it's not? As a biologist, the climate scientists go through the same things I have to with grant applications, data collection, analysis of this data, peer-review and publication.
Lack of evidence. Do keep up with the scientific method.
Begging the question. Why do you fallaciously presuppose a cause? FYI, Threegoofs answer carries as much merit as anything you could hypothesize, too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?