"His reaction was less that of a scientist to questions than of an archbishop to heresy."
Evolution is a religion, evidenced by its adherents foaming at the mouth at any opposition. I think that's the jist of this article.
"His reaction was less that of a scientist to questions than of an archbishop to heresy."
Evolution is a religion, evidenced by its adherents foaming at the mouth at any opposition. I think that's the jist of this article.
2010-01-26 14:48:34
Wouldn't it be great if we could all admit that we don't actually know anything, and admit that when most people actually "know" something ... they usually get it through revelation as opposed to their own empirical fact-finding efforts. I'm amused by people who say "read a book" as if I haven't ever read a book that is pro-evolution or been written by Hitchens or Dawkins or those guys; or as if by reading that book they themselves have uncovered the truth and stand above the ignorant masses. These people act more religiously and superstitiously than I do; I find that ironic. But this guy apparently finds it expected. He's probably right.
2010-01-26 15:16:43
I've been trying to do this myself lately- that is, admit that I personally have not done any empirical lab work so I can't "know for sure." What I try to do now is not argue a point, but explain my point-of-view and then provide sources from which I derive it.
But once I begin to do that, it becomes a matter of why do I trust one source above another? Or why does one source have greater influence over me than another? Hopefully, my answer is, "Because they've drawn conclusions from their own lab work that can be empirically verified." :)