Dishonesty and ID

ID'ists get caughtvery interesting!!CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cravingjava:
[B] I am curious, but do all anti-ID'ers use character attacks to defend their otherwise weak position in the controversy? Also, are all evolutionists ignorant of the fact that there is a very distinct difference between "creationist" vs "ID'er"? [/QUOTE]JM: Actually, they are not all that different at all. This was part of the point of my original post. ID is simply an old creationist idea dressed up in new (albeit see-through) clothes. There is no good science behind the argument insofaras biology is concerned. The whole point of ID is to get religion back into the classroom disguised as science.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cravingjava:
I am curious, but do all anti-ID'ers use character attacks to defend their otherwise weak position in the controversy? Also, are all evolutionists ignorant of the fact that there is a very distinct difference between "creationist" vs "ID'er"?

---

Let's look at a quote from Moonie Wells

quote:

---

My Question: DARWIN’S TREE OF LIFE. Why don’t textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor--thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

---

JM:This makes me think that Wells has not bothered to study the Cambrian 'slow burn' in any detail.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Nah, that's not why, Percy!!

​

Don't most scientists get tenured at around age 40??

​

Then the tenured scientist, like the sea squirt after it finds a secure place in the ocean and permenently attaches itself to a rock, eats it's own brain because it doesn't need it anymore.

​

---

JM: Allright now! I received tenure at one place and gave it up to come here. The year after I received tenure was my most productive (11 articles submitted/published). Furthermore, the notion that your biases hinder new ideas after 40 may be true in other fields, I'll let those people speak for themselves. In geology, there is a saying that the 'best geologist is the one who has seen the most rocks'---in other words, you get better with age. I do know that some people view tenure as an excuse to 'coast', but it is in the minority in science. It actually gives you more freedom to fight the status quo because (a) you've demonstrated you can do it; (b) there is little chance of stepping on someone's toes who might later deny you tenure and (c) you've see more rocks! My colleague next door is near 70, he is a member of the National Acadamy of Sciences, is tenured, and is one of the most active people in the department. No, I don't buy the 'tenure'=inactivity argument as a regular rule.CheersJoe Meert

Percy,Actually, I got both the context and the tongue-in-cheek follow up. I just wanted to make sure that readers who didn't catch it would not leave here thinking that it is true. By the way, I've heard that in math and physics the 'age' has more relevance. Most math 'genuises' do their best work at a young age.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
but beginning scientific study without a preconcieved notion in an issue with such emotional impact as evolution is surely not likely.[/B][/QUOTE]JM: It's an emotional political issue. Scientifically, it is not an emotional issue at all.CheersJoe Meert