Yep, someone didn't like me being brutally honest about it. I find the "free speech -free press" absolutists are always trying to shut down straight-talk about the consequences of their hobby-horse, those who are "Israel right-or-wrong" types among them among the most ready to try to suppress talk they don't like.
What a bunch of lying, double-speaking hypocrites they are. They are never, ever going to be the ones to find a way to effectively fight against fascism-neo-Nazism and its indigenous American form, white-supremacy. Neither is NPR, by the way.
Update: And in other hate mail:
"If you get rid of natural selection all of biology over the past century would be falsified."
A. Don't be such a drama queen, there are enormous swaths of biological knowledge that don't depend on natural selection, for all anyone knows some of it would be better explained if it didn't use that framing.
B. I think you mean about a hundred-sixty years of biology.
C. Even if that tsunami happened and an enormous part of currently held biology did disappear, that's not unprecedented in the history of science.
Ptolemaic cosmology held sway more universally for far, far longer than Darwinism has. I would say that all of the mathematical epicycles and whirly-gigs and fixes that were necessary to keep ol' Ptolemy propped up has more than its like in what props up Darwinism, especially the neo-Darwinian synthesis, the basis of claims that it had a solid basis.
You're acting like the professors of astronomy who were the ones Galileo complained wouldn't look in his telescope for fear of seeing what he was seeing, the firmly established science that was washed away starting when the Cardinal of Capua and the Bishop of Culm and, if my memory of Galileo's famous letter is right, Pius III urged Copernicus to publish his findings.
Isn't that the claim of science? That all holdings of science are merely contingent, always susceptible to being overturned with further knowledge? Yeah, right.
No comments:
Post a Comment