Sarah Palin is a Creationist ID Supporter

It has begun, the google search of Sarah Palin turns up some interesting information about John McCain’s new VP running mate aside from her being currently under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power. She also thinks that creationism should be taught along side evolution in school… that in my book disqualifies her from my personal vote. This shows a lack of critical thinking on her part, as it is clear in the article she does not understand what a scientific theory is.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night’s televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

Is she also in favor of teaching that the Earth is really flat as some people believe?
She has already been taken to task on these comments back when they were made over at the science blog Afarensis

It seems the assault on science is to continue.

August 29, 2008 - Posted by thethyme | Creationism, Freedom, Opinion, Science, United States | Creationism, McCain, Sarah Palin, Science, VP

22 Comments »

It is ridiculous to equate earth is flat with intelligent design…It is proven the earth is not flat…Intelligent Design and evolution are two different theories. Neither have been proven.

http://practicalpolitik.wordpress.com/

Comment by Tilly | August 30, 2008 | Reply
Ridiculous in its accuracy, intelligent design is not a theory both ID and Flat Earth are at best failed hypotheses.

Comment by thethyme | August 30, 2008 | Reply
As a fellow scientist, I find your intolerance of other theories of the earth’s origins quite laughable, to say the least. If we truly believe in the survival of the fittest, why not let the proponents of such theories (specifically ID) duke it out with the evolutionists and see who comes out on top. If we’re that confident in the theory of evolution, we shouldn’t be threatened by other theories.

Comment by bethanybarendregt | August 30, 2008 | Reply
The comment was in regard to biological evolution and not the Earth’s origin, by which I assume you mean how the planet formed… that is not part of the theory of evolution the Earth formation is understood via the Accretion model of planetary formation… however there is a counter whacky model for the Accretion model that we can group with ID, Flat Earth, and now Expanding Earth all once considered, now defunct and failed.

But all could be resurrected if they could just get that pesky evidence to support the positions they posit.

Comment by thethyme | August 30, 2008 | Reply
I see no problem with Creationism being taught in schools… if they are religious schools. But it has no place in public schools. Public school teachers are already drowning with massive amounts of information that they have to cram pack into every school year in order for the kids to be able to pass the yearly tests… to throw religious theory into the mix is ridiculous and unnecessary. Science class is for science. If parents want their kids to learn about creationism, they should teach it at home or at church. But my son doesn’t need to be bothered with it in his public education. And if people want to debate it… that’s great! But it shouldn’t be a mandatory part of any public curriculum.

Palin’s acceptance with Creationism in schools is one of the many many many many reasons I can’t stand her.

Comment by Kristen Ferrell | August 30, 2008 | Reply
Ahh..the old chestnut that someone who doesn’t believe in positive genetic mutation is a flat-earther and doesn’t know what a scientific theory is.

Please remember this post when you hear of the close-mindedness of Christians or the failure of conservative to be open to debate. Palin was herein quoted as saying “debate is healthy, teach both”, and the response from her critic is she doesn’t understand science.

I believe what you heard there after the post was the sound of minds slamming shut. Forget for a minute that piltdown man was a hoax (and the peppered moth, etc), and also that the structure of the cell is sufficiently complicated enough to disprove Darwin’s writing’s by his own standard. Move from there to the lack of reliability or carbon dating, and the lack of a true geologic column. Just start with the clear “everyone knows” evidence that intelligent design is impossible and deserves no thought. Let’s hear that one again, because a hundred million people who are just as intelligent as the next guy seem to have missed that argument. After you remind me why I don’t get science for giving ID a shot, then we can move on to whether there was a big flood, etc.

Think of it this way. I am indicting your religion. You choose to take on faith that there is not an intelligent design to the universe. I am interested in hearing why anyone would believe that, and why one theory is more arguable than the other. After all, when one becomes a proven fact, we can discard the other, yes?

Careful attacking people’s beliefs. You might step on the toes of someone who challenges you. And then you’ll have to scoff without actually answering the challenge.

Good luck with that. I am now prepared for the predictable ad hom response.

Comment by Steve Helt | August 30, 2008 | Reply
I would love to know why you think ID is a failed hypothesis. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn’t make your opinion right. If your theory is so accurate and correct, why do you fear competition in thought and information? If evolution is the correct origin of all things then it should be able to stand head and shoulder above ID in logic and theory with enough evidence to back it all up. Why all the fuss if it is so dominant in those areas?

By the way, thanks for the info on Palin, I didn’t know all of that, its one more positive notch in her belt.

Comment by ncarnes | August 31, 2008 | Reply
This is funny. You claim that Mrs. Palin does not have adequate critical thinking skills, yet you fall on your own sword by confusing Intelligent Design with Creationism. You intentionally conflate the two in order to muddy the waters of the debate. Intelligent Design is not Creationism(6 day creation), but a philosophical framework much like Metaphysical Naturalism. Now whether science can be done in a worldview that posits Intelligent Design is another question, but it is just a tad bit dishonest of you to not mind your language.

Finally, just because Mrs. Palin may not be right about the Evolution/ID debate does not mean that she is not a critical thinker. Just because someone makes a mistake on one thing does not mean that they will do so in another discipline.

Oeco

Comment by oecolampadius | August 31, 2008 | Reply
Tilly (practicalpolitk)
Intelligent Design is not a theory, its a myth, a fairy tale.
Evolution on the other hand, is a scientific theory that has been supported by tangible evidence. Evolution had been proven. ID can never be proven, because by its very definition, it can not be proven.

Comment by aneurinv | August 31, 2008 | Reply
I agree with Kristen’s first paragraph… let Creationism be taught in parochial schools, not in the public ones.

Comment by Stacey | August 31, 2008 | Reply
I’m sure there are plenty of God haters out there that would love to run for office- if you start your search now- maybe can have have one on the ticket for 2012.

Comment by MyJunkD | August 31, 2008 | Reply
Steve Helt: Who do you think discovered that pilt down man was a fraud? Scientists doing science, pilt down man did not fit the growing model for evolution and was investigated and found to be a fraud… pilt down man is a great example of science in action.

Intelligent design has been given many chances and failed most notably in Dover PA, it not that is has not been heard, it just needs to provide evidence, make predictions, test a few hypotheses, submit something for peer review, but it has done none of these things.

Oeco:
Intelligent Design and Creation are tangled together, the first intelligent design text book Of Pandas and People was a former creation text book,references to creation creationism were changed to intelligent design, creationist became design proponents except for the find and replace error cdesign proponentsists. The text was identical they only substituted words of creationism for intelligent design. There is also the Wedge Strategy from the Discovery Institute the leading proponents of Intelligent Design. Which outlines a desire to overturn current science replace it with science favorable to Christianity with God having created everything.

Kristen/Stacey – I attended parochial school and they did teach creationism, in religion class and evolution in science class. My objection to Creationism being taught in school is only in science class… I would not object to creationism being taught in some form of comparative religion or philosophy class, just not science.

Comment by thethyme | August 31, 2008 | Reply
This is only your opinion on Palin, that is the problem today with the internet and the bias news media. They tell you what and how to think which in my opinion is wrong to do.
My vote is for Palin so there is my opinion.
Look at the whole picture rather than judge by one item. You want abuse of Power try picking on the Clintion”s you will find a lot to post an opinion on.

Comment by wayne | August 31, 2008 | Reply
As a fellow scientist, I find your intolerance of other theories of the earth’s origins quite laughable, to say the least. If we truly believe in the survival of the fittest, why not let the proponents of such theories (specifically ID) duke it out with the evolutionists and see who comes out on top. If we’re that confident in the theory of evolution, we shouldn’t be threatened by other theories.

You’re obviously NOT a scientist. Your weak adherence to the scientific method betrays you. ID is not science… it is untestable. Basic scientific knowledge…

ID is unfalsifiable as it is magical thinking. It’s not a valid scientific theory. Hopefully your employer doesn’t read this. They may assume you incorporate magical spells in your work.

Comment by GodKillzYou | August 31, 2008 | Reply
I am pro-evoltion and all for the separation of church/state, however it is a fact that a huge huge % of our country believes in creationism.
IF it is taught in the context of “this is what a lot of people in our country believe because their religion tells them so” then I can see her point about more information being good. Teaching it as a “possible fact” (oxymoron, I know) – no way.

Comment by cpsobsessed | August 31, 2008 | Reply
Well, my first reaction to that was that it is a really scary thought that a possible leader of an advanced civilization could believe in myths and legends. But that the Pope has a lot of power too, and the world somehow survives.

The important thing would be if these so-called religious people would spend less time attending to dogma and more time attending to the real teaching of their religions. Most religions teach tolerance and love for other human beings, but who actually practises that??

Comment by islandmomma | August 31, 2008 | Reply
Oeco:
Intelligent Design and Creation are tangled together, the first intelligent design text book Of Pandas and “People was a former creation text book,references to creation creationism were changed to intelligent design, creationist became design proponents except for the find and replace error cdesign proponentsists. The text was identical they only substituted words of creationism for intelligent design. There is also the Wedge Strategy from the Discovery Institute the leading proponents of Intelligent Design. Which outlines a desire to overturn current science replace it with science favorable to Christianity with God having created everything.”

a) So, in your world beliefs cannot be further refined? Just because scientist reject 6 special creation, does not mean that the concept of Design is wrong.

b) Why could science not be compatible with the Christian God? If he created a well ordered world with secondary causes then things should have an explanation, which is what is required for science, so what is the problem again?

c)What is wrong with the “Wedge” strategy? There are plenty of philosophers who find Naturalism philosophically suspect, and if it is not a self-evident truth then it is open to scrutiny. Naturalism does not deserve a special place, for those who have reasons for rejecting it.

Oeco

Comment by oecolampadius | September 1, 2008 | Reply
“ID is unfalsifiable as it is magical thinking. ”

Magical thinking? How is it magical thinking? I have never personally seen a theologian or philosopher say abacadabra, but maybe you have had different experiences, no? In other words this is just bullshit blathering.

“It’s not a valid scientific theory.”

Neither is Metaphysical Naturalism. Intelligent Design and Naturalism are both foundational beliefs that one brings to data, and then theories are formed. Naturalism cannot be empirically tested, because you would have to assume the very thing you are trying to prove. Same way with Intelligent Design they are on equal footing.

“Hopefully your employer doesn’t read this. They may assume you incorporate magical spells in your work.”

I have not heard that sort of a threat since reading about John Wycliffe. It was after they burnt him at the stake of course. I guess fundamentalism takes many different forms.

Oeco

Comment by oecolampadius | September 1, 2008 | Reply
a) So, in your world beliefs cannot be further refined? Just because scientist reject 6 special creation, does not mean that the concept of Design is wrong.

b) Why could science not be compatible with the Christian God? If he created a well ordered world with secondary causes then things should have an explanation, which is what is required for science, so what is the problem again?

c)What is wrong with the “Wedge” strategy? There are plenty of philosophers who find Naturalism philosophically suspect, and if it is not a self-evident truth then it is open to scrutiny. Naturalism does not deserve a special place, for those who have reasons for rejecting it.

Your Comments are best answered in the ruling of the honorable Judge John E Jones III in his decision of the Kitzmiller V. Dover Board Area School District

A significant aspect of the IDMis that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, is the author of the book Creationism’s Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID’s religious, philosophical, and cultural content. The following is a representative grouping of such statements made by prominent ID proponents.5

Phillip Johnson, considered to be the father of the IDM, developer of ID’s “Wedge Strategy,” which will be discussed below, and author of the 1991 book entitled Darwin on Trial, has written that “theistic realism” or “mere creation” are defining concepts of the IDM. This means “that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . .” (Trial Tr. vol. 10, Forrest Test., 80-81, Oct. 5, 2005; P-328). In addition, Phillip Johnson states that the “Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose.” (11:16-17 (Forrest); P-524 at 1). ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible, which begins, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.” (11:18-20, 54-55 (Forrest); P-524; P-355; P-357). Dembski has written that ID is a “ground clearing operation” to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.” (11:50-53 (Forrest); P-386; P-390). Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’sassertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

Dramatic evidence of ID’s religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the “Wedge Document.” The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute’s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter “CRSC”), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM’s goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’sgoal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM’s”Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Id. at 4. The CSRCexpressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document’s goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.

In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID’s religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1265-66. Prominent ID proponents have made abundantly clear that the designer is supernatural.

Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that the designer is a natural entity.” (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered. (38:97 (Minnich)). Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr. vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005). Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8-15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32-34, Sept. 28, 2005).

Further support for the proposition that ID requires supernatural creation is found in the book Pandas, to which students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are directed. Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature. (P-11 at 6). Professor Haught, who as noted was the only theologian to testify in this case, explained that in Western intellectual tradition, non-natural causes occupy a space reserved for ultimate religious explanations. (9:13-14 (Haught)). Robert Pennock, Plaintiffs’ expert in the philosophy of science, concurred with Professor Haught and concluded that because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent, immaterial, non-natural being, ID is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label. (5:55-56 (Pennock)). It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID’s religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.

Note the text book they are referring is Of Pandas and People in use in 2005, I recommend reading the full decision this was the chance for ID to present its best any evidence for the veracity and strength of their arguements. In the decision the Judge Jones also addresses the issue of is ID science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. (9:21-22 (Haught ); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. (9:21 (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).

As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter “NAS”) was recognized by experts for both parties as the “most prestigious” scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 (Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.” ( P-649 at 27).

This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. (1:63 (Miller); 5:29-31 (Pennock)). We are in agreement with Plaintiffs’ lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper.” (3:14-15 (Miller)). As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer. Id.

ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and as various expert testimony revealed. (17:96 (Padian); 2:35-36 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural. (5:107 (Pennock)). Further support for the conclusion that ID is predicated on supernatural causation is found in the ID reference book to which ninth grade biology students are directed, Pandas. Pandas states, in pertinent part, as follows:

Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.

P-11 at 99-100 (emphasis added). Stated another way, ID posits that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer. Defendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point. (21:96-100 (Behe); P-718 at 696, 700 (“implausible that the designer is a natural entity”); 28:21-22 (Fuller) (“. . . ID’s rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism . . .”); 38:95-96 (Minnich) (ID does not exclude the possibility of a supernatural designer, including deities).

It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).

Comment by thethyme | September 1, 2008 | Reply
Dude, give us a BREAK! You were against Palin before she was even announced as his running mate. Don’t sit there and try to pretend that you were open-minded but when you found out she supported ID you suddenly had a crisis of conscience and couldn’t vote for her. Please! You’re an Obama supporter and wouldn’t vote for McCain and Palin if they were the only persons on the ticket. It’s okay to say that you aren’t for McCain and Palin, but to try to oh-so reluctantly dismiss her as a choice because of her views on ID is just bullsh!t. You know you’re a die hard Democrat. NO ONE is fooled by your nonsensical, farcical crisis of conscience rhetoric about Palin’s ID views. Be who you are, a liberal Democrat and save the kindergarten pretending for the kindergartners.

Comment by Michael David | September 4, 2008 | Reply
You are correct that had I been aware of Sarah Palin I would have been against her as a candidate running anywhere, she and I don’t agree on many things but ID/creationism was the fourth item I found out about her when she was announced as VP it was Gov AK, Beauty Queen, State investigation, Creationist… and that was that, I had all the information I personally needed.
John McCain was a different story if he had made a different choice I could of considered voting his way… I think he made a bad choice

Comment by thethyme | September 4, 2008 | Reply
Magical thinking? How is it magical thinking? I have never personally seen a theologian or philosopher say abacadabra, but maybe you have had different experiences, no? In other words this is just bullshit blathering.

It’s not the theologian or the philosopher saying abracadabra, it’s “God.” He’s the one doing magic spells to bring things into existence.

“It’s not a valid scientific theory.”

Neither is Metaphysical Naturalism. Intelligent Design and Naturalism are both foundational beliefs that one brings to data, and then theories are formed. Naturalism cannot be empirically tested, because you would have to assume the very thing you are trying to prove. Same way with Intelligent Design they are on equal footing.

Right. They are both not scientific. ID starts with the conclusion and works backwards. Not very scientific. I don’t ascribe to Naturalism either. I look where the evidence points.

And by the way, you must not have much faith in God if you really need to try to find evidence that He created everything. Faith is acceptance without evidence. Looking for proof is a form of doubt, which is a form of sin. Possibly against the Holy Ghost, for which there is no forgiveness, in this life or the life to come (according to the Bible, anyway).

“Hopefully your employer doesn’t read this. They may assume you incorporate magical spells in your work.”

I have not heard that sort of a threat since reading about John Wycliffe. It was after they burnt him at the stake of course. I guess fundamentalism takes many different forms.

I take this to mean you keep a magic wand by your scientific instruments? Or that you support chants and various magical practices in the laboratory? Am I being too “fundamentalist?” Should I support Sorcerer Scientists? Psychic Psychologists? Paranormal Pathologists? Dowsing Doctors? Is every type of pseudoscience legitimate? Or are you using the logical fallacy of the appeal to pity? That wouldn’t be very scientific of you.

Comment by GodKillzYou | October 6, 2008 | Reply