Legacy media reporter admits: “Creationism doesn’t affect the way science is done”

Geez, Allan Keith all I did was ask for evidence... ET

And being an IDist didn't prevent my kid from getting an A+ in Biology I and getting the highest score on the biology final of everyone taking Bio I. :cool: ET

Restricting sex education. Restricting access to contraceptives. Providing contraceptives.

Good lil' proggy. Regurgitate your betters talking points. Andrew asauber

DDT and its metabolites almost whiped out predatory birds through a previously unknown mechanism.

Evidence please And why is it that you just ignore the science and the claims referenced? Why don't you at least try to ta=ke them on? ET

ET,

DDT was banned due to a hoax- pseudo-science.

One of us has made a living as a chemist for the last thirty years. What have you been doing? DDT is a very good insecticide. In fact, too good. It kills mosquitoes as well as their predators (and bees and other insects beneficial to humans). And, on top of that, it breaks down very slowly, and its metabolites are themselves toxic. DDT and its metabolites almost whiped out predatory birds through a previously unknown mechanism. I currently run a proficiency testing program for laboratories that test for environmental contaminants, including DDT. We are still detecting DDT in our waterways several decades after it was banned. The pesticides we now use against mosquitoes are more effective, more specific to mosquitoes, and degrade quickly. Anyone who would prefer to return to the use of DDT knows nothing about it, nor about modern pesticides. Allan Keith

AK @ 7 and 9 Yes, everything we do has an impact. Not farming. Not paving roads. Letting rivers run free. Sexualizing our youth at a young age. Providing contraceptives on demand. Promoting activities that are harmful for the development of people. The point is whether the activity is beneficial or not. My guess is we will disagree on what is and isn't beneficial. I do find comfort that in most cases, the evidence sides most closely with me. Mark from CO Mark from CO

Allan doesn't like to read and doesn't care about facts. DDT was banned due to a hoax- pseudo-science. Oh, that's why you agree with it. ET

--I would say never because there are alternatives available.-- If there are better alternatives it's moot point, but if DDT is the best solution then making a dogma that it is bad to use will backfire. Dogmatic environmentalism is one of the reasons why Rachel Carson has unfairly become a bogywoman. tribune7

ET,

Wait, human benefits do not include environmental and ecosystem damage.

We agree. That is why DDT was banned. As was leaded gasoline, lead paint, mercury and asbestos products, PCBs, etc. Allan Keith

Wait, human benefits do not include environmental and ecosystem damage. But indoctrinating our children with the pseudo-science of evolutionism is the most detrimental thing a society could ever do- it has an impact- negatively. ET

The big question is, at what point do human benefits trump environmental and ecosystem damage? Keeping in mind that we are part of the environment and the ecosystem. Although, I do find it strange that those who support DDT are the same ones who say that indiscriminately burning fossil fuels do not have an impact. Everything we do has an impact. Farming. Paving roads. Damming rivers. Restricting sex education. Restricting access to contraceptives. Providing contraceptives. Allan Keith

All pesticides should be used cautiously. As a gardener, I (News) do not use any pesticides at all in a home urban garden. A plant that gets overloaded with pests is just wrong for the environment. Of course, an industrial farm somewhere has different problems; I accept that. But then any industrial facility has different problems from a healthy urban environment. News

DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud:

The chemical compound that has saved more human lives than any other in history, DDT, was banned by order of one man, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds, anti-androgenic properties, and prolonged environmental persistence are false or grossly exaggerated. The worldwide effect of the U.S. ban has been millions of preventable deaths.

Here is another good read: DDT Ban Breeds Death Then we have: The lies of Rachel Carson DDT is good. Knee-jerk societies are not ET

I would say never because there are alternatives available. DDT was just too indiscriminate a killer of insects. Allan Keith

I wouldn't say never but the way it was handled before Silent Spring was creating a disaster. tribune7

Tribune7,

I think Rachel Carson gets a bad rap. Good ideas inevitably get taken to far.

I agree. The link between DDT and declines in raptors is very clear. And once it was banned, the birds slowly came back. Persistent pesticides such as DDT should never be used, and degradable pesticides should be used cautiously. Allan Keith

I think Rachel Carson gets a bad rap. Good ideas inevitably get taken to far. In the '60s there really was a problem with insecticides killing birds -- and insects becoming resistant to them. tribune7