Joined: May 2006
|Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 05 2008,01:35)|
|Wesley: You could probably have saved yourself a lot of time (and a lot of words) by simply saying, "I'm going with the majority." But you of all people should know that consensus science is like patriotrism--the last refuge of a scoundrel.|
By your logic, it was right for Galileo to be persecuted for his views, because the overwhelming majority of astronomers were certain that geocentrism was right and heliocentrism was wrong.
While I think arguing about science with a screenwriter is about as productive as a monkey humping a football, I had to comment on this little gem.
Kevin, much hay is made by the anti-evolution crowd about majority views when polls are published indicating that only a minority of the general American public believes in evolution. Apparently, some majorities are better than others? It is especially ironic when the anti-evolution side (of which I, for the moment, presume you are part) prefers the majority view of unschooled scientific layman over the views of people who have actually, you know, learned the subject over many years of scholarship. This, in and of itself, is a form of scoundrel majoritarianism with it's rejection of expertise in favor of "the will of the people."
As far as Galileo, you should know that there is a well-worn, and proven, path to advancing controversial ideas in the sciences. It is called "returning to the lab and building a case" and it is the stuff Nobels are made out of. But, that is not the path the advocates of ID have chosen. Not content to be censored by Big Science, they have been reduced apparently to censoring themselves. Their own journals are defunct. Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (William Dembski, General Editor) has not been published in almost 2 and half years. Origins and Design has not been published in nearly 8 years. And let us not forget the Biologic Institute, who's website is a moribund shell, a fitting metaphor for their scientific output despite being incorporated and funded three years ago outside the selective pressure of the dogmatic Darwinists of Big Science.
The fact of the matter is that the anti-evolution crowd is just not interested in actually, you know, doing science. There are plenty of religious universities that are sympathetic to the ID movement and many even have science departments. Yet none are engaged in supportive scientific research even though they have the means and motive to do so. Why do you suppose that is? Why is it so important to dump poison in the well by attacking scientists while offering absolutely nothing in return? Just how much satisfaction are you getting from those 30 pieces of silver?
No sir, our intrepid advocates of the nascent, groundbreaking science of Intelligent Design have eschewed such a proletarian strategy of actually building their case. They are much more content to put the cart in front of the horse and publish textbooks, help dimwitted legislators draft various bills, and film movies. Good luck with that. In the meantime Big Science continues to roll along providing new medicines and treatments that both our families will benefit from. I suppose it is a good thing (for you anyway) that you don't have to actually believe in evolution to benefit from the knowledge of it.
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)