Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.
If you are going to go after core science, be honest about it and go after core scientists.
Of course, there will always be yahoos who think the need for vaccinations and fluoridation aren’t “real science.”
I can scientifically prove AGW is not science (see my tag).
“Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.”
Because the Scientism liberal totalitarians use Darwin, not Madame Curie, Newton or Einstein.
Your comment is odd in that this appropriation of Darwin by the left is rather obvious.
Your contention that this article is using a whipping boy to attack science is bizarre as well.
No matter what one thinks of Discovery Institute’s scientific views, eg Intelligent Design, the issues raised here are separate and address social and political concerns.
Do you think Discovery Institute is wrong about What they call Scientism and their claim of the abuse of science by the Liberals and leftists for political or social goals?
“Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.”
Because Darwinian theory is primarily about interpreting history. Science is much more limited in explanatory power when it comes to history because, without a time machine, we simply cannot know all of the facts. We cannot observe them directly. Science also has NO TRUE predictive power when it comes to history. Sure, claims are made about what science will supposedly discover about various historical clues, but this is very different from being able to predict outcomes of controlled experimentation.
Darwinism also mixes real science with speculation that is not testable or falsifiable, like the idea that there could be a universal common ancestor. That idea does not represent a law or theory, just a historical event. And without a time machine, there is no way to test it, and nothing could ever disprove it. So it is not science.
“Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.”
Because Darwinian theory is primarily about interpreting history. Science is much more limited in explanatory power when it comes to history because, without a time machine, we simply cannot know all of the facts. We cannot observe them directly. Science also has NO TRUE predictive power when it comes to history. Sure, claims are made about what science will supposedly discover about various historical clues, but this is very different from being able to predict outcomes of controlled experimentation.
Darwinism also mixes real science with speculation that is not testable or falsifiable, like the idea that there could be a universal common ancestor. That idea does not represent a law or theory, just a historical event. And without a time machine, there is no way to test it, and nothing could ever disprove it. So the speculation of a universal common ancestor is not science.
“Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.”
Because Darwinian theory is primarily about interpreting history. Science is much more limited in explanatory power when it comes to history because, without a time machine, we simply cannot know all of the facts. We cannot observe them directly. Science also has NO TRUE predictive power when it comes to history. Sure, claims are made about what science will supposedly discover about various historical clues, but this is very different from being able to predict outcomes of controlled experimentation.
Darwinism also mixes real science with speculation that is not testable or falsifiable, like the idea that there could be a universal common ancestor. That idea does not represent a law or theory, just a historical event. And without a time machine, there is no way to test it, and nothing could ever disprove it. So the speculation of a universal common ancestor is not science.