re: #558 pimp_conservative
yeah- others pretty much got it there man.
I’m wonder why Charles blogging about creationists is offensive to you. Because there are bigger problems? Well, by that logic Rush also probably had better things to mention. But he went after evolution.
Tolerance of this idea is tolerance of non-science, with a religious agenda, masquerading as science for the purpose of, essentially, converting others. It’s practically domestic totalitarianism. Ideas with agendas other than truth should not be tolerated.
Evolution as an “unproven theory”? “Theory” is a term of art in science, and has specific criteria. Evolution is recognized by the scientific community as the best theory to explain speciation. It is a falsifiable theory but has passed its tests.
ID has passed no tests and is not falsifiable. No reputable scientist recognizes the science behind it.
The discover could be fake? Keeping your fingers crossed huh? That’s the problem with “wanting to believe.” I’m guessing your agenda is not solely finding the truth. That will definitely cause emotional reactions to contrary information. Want to get rid of this cognitive dissonance? Get rid of your agenda.
How did he twist Rush’s words? The words are right there. It’s pretty straightforward. Why should he feel shame for his viewpoint here? Do Rush’s other viewpoints mean we need to tolerate his wrong ones? You seem to be suggesting this.
And Charles is not “ranting about a single issue.” Talk about a total misrepresentation of his recent posts! Why are you lying about this website?
I’d like to echo your sentiment, but direct it back to you: I wish you the best and hope you come to your senses about this.