To: GodGunsGuts
It doesn’t follow that the actions of a few reflect on all scientists.
3 posted on
12/30/2008 3:45:53 PM PST by
DevNet
To: DevNet
It doesn’t follow that the actions of a few reflect on all scientists.I'd want some verification that these protestors could even be legitimately called "scientists" before I'd even go that far.
5 posted on
12/30/2008 3:49:18 PM PST by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: DevNet
Certainly not. But it does reflect on the radical Evos (such as Dawkins et al) who advocate using force to squelch honest debate.
To: DevNet
Let’s call them the SA wing of the scientific party, would that be it?
To: DevNet
Welcome to FR.
Funny, creationists have never acted like that to the best of my knowledge and yet we’re compared to dominionists by some of your compatriots.
With no precedent we’re accused of wanting to burn scientists at the stake.
It goes both ways and we’ve never done anything like that.
All we are is being ACCUSED of it and those made up scenarios are supposed to reflect on all creationists.
23 posted on
12/30/2008 4:28:04 PM PST by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: DevNet
It doesn’t follow that the actions of a few reflect on all scientists.No, but it does say loads about the intolerant & insecure ones.
50 posted on
12/30/2008 7:02:10 PM PST by
tpanther
(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
To: DevNet
...beeeeecause, on the whole, the scientific establishment has welcome alternative models with open arms and minds?
110 posted on
12/31/2008 8:15:23 AM PST by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson