More importantly, what's the result? That's what one hopes to discover by investigating history.
Don't leave us in suspense, what's the result? Is the Theory of Evolution a bunch of made up lies that were pushed onto the unsuspecting science establishment and is held there by a conspiracy of ardent atheists bent on world domination? Does this conspiracy still hold sway over all scientists even though the Theory of Evolution can be easily disproved and the scientist disproving it would win the Nobel prize? Please provide more evidence than a club of men who championed a theory that they thought was true.
Probably true, I forgot how much influence the "evil empire of evolutionism" has over the media. That's probably why the porn industry can still function in this country because of the influential evolutionists trying to inject evil everywhere they can. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the first amendment.
I had not considered this angle. Is there evidence of a connection?
No, there is no evidence of a connection, but that doesn't stop AIG from saying it is true.
Judging by the number of books still being written about them and the ideas they promoted, I'd say quite a few people are being influenced by them now. Evospeak is still widely used - that's more evidence. Intimidation is still practiced in support of their views. I could probably think of more, and I'd probably overlook a few things.
The fact that scientists conclude that the evidence in the natural world supports the Theory of Evolution, is not evidence that those men pushed something onto the scientific establishment that they believed was not true. Their actions in getting support for the Theory of Evolution among scientists is not evidence that the Theory of Evolution is not true.
If using political action to push a theory onto the public automatically meant that the theory was untrue, then ID is automatically made untrue by the actions of the Discovery Institute and their lawyers.
I haven't seen Wilbur or Orville around lately. Do you maintain their influence is missing from the present day? Are their ghosts involved? And I'm told Nietsche is dead also, for what that's worth.
I didn't know Wilbur and Orville politically influenced the acceptance of heavier-than-air flight. I don't think Nietsche had a lot of influence on politics or science in his lifetime, so I doubt that he was able to force scientists to accept his philosophies.
Seriously, your comment on the merits (or lack thereof) of evolutionism (whatever that is!!!) seems to indicate that you believe there is no evidence for evolution (surprise!, surprise!). It is unfortunate that your stating such does not make it so. Perhaps you should provide some evidence that your statement is correct.
There is a thread listing and categorizing the evidence. You've seen it.
I saw a thread where you claim this, but fail to support even one of your assertions.
Of course this same scientific method that cannot ferret out the (to you) glaring inadequacies of evidential support for evolution, seems to provide mountains of modern conveniences for you to take advantage of....Medicine, computers, aircraft, space flight...to name a few. What is it that allows scientists to be so intelligent in those areas of science yet makes them so stupid when it comes to biology, geology and cosmology?
On the contrary. I have maintained that proper application of the scientific method
will ferret out mistakes. I'm close to concluding that's why you're afraid to apply it.
Please provide this "proper application" so I can see where I have it wrong. If you have time, could you point out the indicators in my posts that show I am afraid to apply the scientific method?
Your second question is poorly worded. If I were compelled to answer that one, all the evidence points to evolutionism. But they aren't stupid. They're deceived. Some may be only playing along. It's hard to tell. We are attempting to investigate how the deception took place. Why do you oppose this investigation?
If they are so easily deceived with evidence that you (don't know chemistry, don't know biology...by your own admission) can easily see through, then they must be pretty stupid.
Now that I think about it, there's a pattern: the more someone becomes involved in evolutionism, the less they seem capable of applying the rules of science. They contradict themselves more frequently, and their words make sense less frequently. Maybe there is some stupification involved at some point after all. 'Nother topic.
Another baseless claim with no evidence to support it whatsoever. Of course you'll start another topic. Bullcrap is cheap.
