Intelligent Design Media News Science

Does your government still support Darwinian science?

Spread the love

Probably.

Some guy actually asks questions we have all been wondering about: reflecting on the current cover story in National Geographic, “The War on Science”:

: Anyone who expresses any doubt in what National Geographic calls “the consensus of experts” is a crank or a nut. From the magazine’s perspective, no other explanations are even worth consideration.

And the article featured a reproduction of an 1893 map of the “Stationary and Square Earth” drawn up by a South Dakota businessman who insisted that the Earth was flat. It was an illustration, National Geo says, of how “we subconsciously cling to our intuitions” about the world even when experts tell us we are wrong.

Among the many things missing from the article is any acknowledgement whatsoever that many, if not most, of the critics of the International Panel on Climate Change are themselves eminent meteorologists and scientists, such as Richard Lindzen of MIT.

The magazine links and absurdly lampoons a number of skeptical views, as if they were all of a piece.

Of course. That is a typical strategy to prevent serious discussion.

If you don’t think Darwinism explains antibiotic resistance (like some U prof who should have retired before horizontal gene transfer among bacteria came to be generally known), you are just like the person who thinks the Earth is flat.

And glad for the privilege of paying for it, right?

Maybe we can all aspire to be like that TV talk show host. ( or Flip, flip, flip)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Does your government still support Darwinian science?

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    i stopped long ago my nat geo because it was pandering for audience and seemed to be mostly about whales and balloons. Its boring especially when youtube gives great things to observe.
    Of coarse the war on science is a attack on public opinion that disagrees with a few conclusions like evolution of climate change.
    In short agree or be a dumb person and hater of science.
    They arte so lame and worst ignorant that many/most improvements in science came from rebels to the consensus.
    They truly attack the intellect and integrity of their opponents.
    its just a few writers who never accomplished anything of coarse.
    What do they know?

  2. 2
    rvb8 says:

    The biggest critics of the IPCC are those who think it far too conservative. These respected scientists insist that the IPCC is far too accepting of critics and their delusional complaints. Kind of like having a Robert Byers in your camp; not good for your science credentials. The sidelined cranks who deny the science are just that, sidelined cranks.

    Anyway, this backyard, backward yearning, for a day when Climate Science was peripheral is so very DI. Creating a supposed confrontation where consensus outside of Conservative North America exists, is so very Newsy.

  3. 3
    Mark Frank says:

    If you don’t think Darwinism explains antibiotic resistance (like some U prof who should have retired before horizontal gene transfer among bacteria came to be generally known), you are just like the person who thinks the Earth is flat

    If you think horizontal gene transfer among bacteria is incompatible with a Darwinian explanation of antibiotic resistance then you are better off writing about whether the earth is flat.

  4. 4
    humbled says:

    If you believe horizontal gene transfer is compatible to that ridiculous Victorian fairytale you believe in then by all means enlighten us.

    I won’t hold my breath 😉

  5. 5
    goodusername says:

    If you don’t think Darwinism explains antibiotic resistance (like some U prof who should have retired before horizontal gene transfer among bacteria came to be generally known), you are just like the person who thinks the Earth is flat.

    Anyone know what professor is being referred to?

Leave a Reply