Those with bad hearts should not go here.

[Pale Blue Dot]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3607752

I can't believe that stuff like this gets posted - and then respected - on this website.

Honestly, this is jaw-dropping stuff.

[TZ]

1. You saw my comment

Thats pure rw/fundie bullshit. But what the hell do I know...I'm only a zoo major with an empahasis on ecology evolution and behavior...:grr:
More proof of the scientific illiteracy that runs rampant on this site.

[realisticphish]

8. you're just

part of The Darwinist Machine :grr:

[moggie]

15. I see one of them is still smarting over his spanking

So much so that he's brought it up, somewhat bizarrely, in a completely unrelated thread in R/T. How they love to be persecuted!

[LeftishBrit]

2. Argh. !

Just aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[CanSocDem]

3. You're quite right....

...discussion should only be about "what is..." or in this case, what my mommy and daddy told me about the world.


:rofl:


.

[lizerdbits]

4. So basically she's saying:

I don't like the 'social darwinist' theory that was coined due to evolutionary theory because it's cruel. If I use my lack of scientific knowledge and conspiracy theories to convince enough other people who lack scientific knowledge and support conspiracy theories that 'survival of the fittest' is not correct then it will no longer be true.

I am by no means a 'social darwinist' (otherwise I'd be a republican) but trying to refute over 100 years of evidence because you don't like social darwinists is just fucking stupid.

[salvorhardin]

5. Oh my, what utter shit

I just posted my comment on the Mazur crap-fest.

[onager]

6. Me too.

Change very few words in her argument about "survival of the fittest" and it would be right at home on a right-wing Fundie site.

Sweeping statements of jaw-dropping stupidity. Just what we need, more scientific ignoramuses sitting around coming up with all the ways evolution OUGHT to work. Meaning, it OUGHT to conform to their political biases.

I'm mostly a scientific ignoramus myself. But I try not to go around proving it in public.

[realisticphish]

7. JBoris is fighting the good fight

though i think it's a futile one.

Now, I don't know the poster at all, is this some PoMo advocate? Or is it a veiled religious attack?

[varkam]

9. Yeah, I saw that.

It started off on the wrong fucking foot, saying that "no one knows how life began". Yeah? No shit. Problem is that it is not a concern of evolution. Bigger problem is that fundie assholes looove to say that as a way of attacking evolution, or at least as a way of trying to attack it. Of course, you cannot kill what you cannot see.

[TZ]

10. It took me about 3 sentences to smell the utter idiocy

I never understand WHY the MSM is mistrusted to report regular news, yet alot of people seem to think journalists who report on science are accurate, when likely their background involves a high school chemistry class and therefore are as unqualified to understand what they are reporting on.

[varkam]

11. That's best case scenario.

Worst case scenario: the reporters learned all they need to know 'bout that thar Darwinism in church.

[moggie]

12. They always fall back on Thomas Kuhn

Ugh. Nine out of ten articles citing Thomas Kuhn are crackpot. What the Altenberg 16 are doing is not paradigm shift material, it's just the normal progress of science.

[LeftishBrit]

13. Try working on the psychology of mathematical thinking, and having to read articles at the more

sociological end of the subject!

Kuhn had some good things to say, but I've reached the point of screaming whenever I see his name!

[enki23]

14. here's what one of the organizers has to say:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-there-fundamental-scientific.html