tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029586443956556827.post5427889330986906121..comments2023-11-03T08:38:00.104-05:00Comments on House of Cards: Bueller....Bueller....Bueller...Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10243994948914787251noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029586443956556827.post-28581222881657469402008-05-13T09:57:00.000-05:002008-05-13T09:57:00.000-05:00It's interesting you brought up the free speech an...It's interesting you brought up the free speech angle. I negleted to mention it, but I agree. Too often, the First Amendment right is portrayed, not as the freedom to express opinions, but rather the protection of those opinions from scrutiny. <BR/><BR/>There should be no need to insinuate that it is not the latter case, but there is. <BR/><BR/>The problem with an inherent disbelief in scientific theories that contradict biases bred since birth is that it shows a protectionist intellectual quality that ignores the differences in Biblical opinion and scientific opinion. <BR/><BR/>Biological support for evolution is borne out by the fossil record, and open to a set of circumstances which would contradict it. <BR/><BR/>Creationism is founded only in the belief in itself. Nothing can propagate it further, nor will anything ever contradict it, given its nature as a non-disprovable theory.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10243994948914787251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029586443956556827.post-74755856947926109822008-05-12T13:46:00.000-05:002008-05-12T13:46:00.000-05:00Great blog. This is my favorite point, "A century...Great blog. This is my favorite point, "A century and a half of digging and collecting evidence hasn't produced anything to refute the theory. 150 years have yet to produce fossilized remains in a strata below where they should be, breaking Darwin's timetable irrevocably. If that happens, biologists will have to change. One can't imagine supporters of ID would do the same. The ID believers are left at the starting gate with their over-arching question, nothing to back their position but simple conjecture and proselytizing. "<BR/><BR/>I wrote this recently (and referenced the same videos on youtube):<BR/><BR/>Theory of Evolution has withstood the scrutiny of academic debate and scientific experiment for 150+ years. Creationists try to undermine science and evolution mostly through willful ignorance and expecting others to just give in to their self-serving premises. They also try to defend this action by declaring Creationism, Free Speech. <BR/>And pitting Creationism-Free Speech vs Evolution, while one is an opinion and the other is an academically uncontested theory with 150 years of academic research, debate, and documented proof to back it up. <BR/><BR/>In fact Evolution won the debate because it had evidence to back it up, Creationism did not, this debate took place over a hundred years ago.<BR/>Today knowing they lack evidence, creationists muddle creationism as protected free speech, which in turn gives way to the general public believing that such an OPINION should be taught next to Theory of Evolution in the classroom.<BR/><BR/>Such Ignorance was usually dismissed prima facie. But due to links to Authority figures and Airtime in the mainstream media they seem to gain ground everyday, while science retreats (in the US at least).<BR/><BR/>So in the spirit of defending science I share the following series from youtube, "Why do People Laugh at Creationists?"<BR/><BR/>Link to youtube playlist (user = thunderf00t)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com