Do readers remember Evolutionary bioinformaticist Dan Graur who was so upset about the ENCODE findings (very little junk DNA) that he just wasn’t going to “do politeness” on the topic any more?
Here he is again, at Twitter:
Why do scientists continue to use BC (before Christ) and AD (anno Domini, the year of our Lord). We know very little about Mr. Jesus; we are not even sure he existed. Scientists should use BCE (before the current or common era) and CE.
Wow. Dr. Graur should get out more. Only crackpots argue that Jesus did not exist. The real issues are around his status and the reliability of the documents concerning his life and ministry. There is less evidence for the existence of Socrates but no one gets all skeptical about him.
From the responses:
How much have you read in the field of New Testament scholarship? The evidence for the historicity of Jesus is just staggering, and this is reflected by the scholarly consensus to this effect.
How juvenile. The The ignorant bumptiousness here is remarkable from someone who thinks his views as a scientist merit respect. I myself have often used BCE and CE rather than BC and AD, by the way. As a Jew, I’m ambivalent about it.
Both usages, of course, signify a historical watershed. Can’t hide that by changing the abbreviations.
Graur had best go back to dissing ENCODE researchers. At least it is a field he knows.