Are Darwinian scientists becoming religiously dogmatic?

Pope Dawkins

The neo-Darwinist scientific community is to Richard Milton what the Catholic Church was to Galileo Galilei.

Click on the picture of Richard Milton above to see his presentation.


8 thoughts on “Are Darwinian scientists becoming religiously dogmatic?

  1. We are very fortunate that a big brained non scientist like Milton is able to put together what thousands of highly trained scientists we call biologists have overlooked: startling evidence against evolution! Why, it’s obviously a conspiracy of scientists everywhere to suppress Milton’s brilliant breakthroughs. Gee, I wonder why in this ‘interview’ not a single biologist was given air time to respond to the absurdities… oops, I mean deepities… oops, I mean keen observations… raised by Milton. Oh, I don’t know… maybe because his points have been thoroughly discredited by those who actually have training in the fields he so easily dismisses?

    This guy is not worth listening to. He wants to sell his conspiracy book. That’s the sum extent of his ‘scientific’ contribution.

    There is no controversy, no conspiracy, no contra-data to the theory of evolution. But there will never be a lack of writing hacks who wish to cash in on the public’s gullibility for believing in conspiracies. Milton is flea and a very hypocritical and intellectually dishonest one. Not one of his points stands against legitimate research and legitimate criticism. Not one. Yet you promote junk this as if it reveals something worth while to consider. It doesn’t. It simply feeds off your willingness to be gullible, to believe what you want to believe rather than learn what is knowable and what is most likely true. Belief in oogity boogity is neither a reliable nor rational plank upon which to base a scientific opinion. It’s a great big waving red flag of FAIL.

    1. “Not one of his points stands against legitimate research and legitimate criticism. Not one.”

      I’m sure you’ve done the necessary research to back up this claim and aren’t just accepting the talking points of one authority over another.

      1. I wanted to argue every point he raised in the video not with my opinion but the facts as I know them to be. And yes, I have done geologic fieldwork and radiometric dating of samples, so I know his ‘argument’ using what little science he knows borders on ignorance.

        He is practicing classic cherry-picking and utterly fails to address how radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating all line up beautifully per sample, and that thousands of samples line up beautifully across strata, how this directly supports the geochronology that informs our geologic time scale. His argument based on his own misunderstanding of the science used today for dating methods is simply ignorance in action and carried out in a very clumsy, stupid fashion.

        For example, his absurd cherry-picking of the uranium lead dating byproduct not only fails to address that BOTH decay chains are used for the dating method but that a single U238 to Pb 206 method is a ratio measurement. He makes it sound as if the byproduct of decay doesn’t line up with the parent sample being measured. That’s just plainly wrong and I think intentionally misrepresented to create a false sense of doubt in the minds of the average person that this spectrum of dating is somehow untrustworthy. It isn’t. It’s solid because it uses multiple lines of mutually supportive evidence and not some tenuous link to some mythical byproduct he apparently measures.

        I call bullshit.

        The geologists I have worked with represent millions of dollars of investment money based on the methods Milton says we need to doubt. These geologists set in motion projects based on their understanding of the geologic time scale that yield sometimes up to billions of dollars in profit for their backers. This would not happen here in real life if doubt about the veracity of the methods were justified.

        For crying out loud, stop reaching for the imaginings of the wishful thinkers as if this kind of garbage they produce was legitimate and look to real science done by real people with our very best and latest understanding and look to them for what works and what doesn’t. You will find very quickly that evolution works – reliably, consistently, and yields practical, workable applications based on the explanation of non directed natural selection. The medicine you use today is based on exactly this, which is why evolutionary biology is not simply some kind of belief system some people choose to think is true; it is a FOUNDATION of modern biology upon which we have built vast sums of knowledge we use every day. Not only is evolution true, it is as true as any knowledge we currently possess. To cast doubt on it means having to explain what evidence we have in some other way that does at least as good a job and produces at least as much testable and reliable knowledge for our applications. Oogity boogity is not an option because it is empty – EMPTY – of knowledge. I can’t use oogity boogity in my calculations or substitute ‘because god intervened here and went poof’ as part of my explanation setting up a causal chain of evidence that woks here and there today, yesterday, and successfully predicts tomorrow. Oogity boogity is a child’s answer equivalent to saying I don’t know but I’m going to pretend I do with this pseudo-answer.

  2. “There is no controversy, no conspiracy, no contra-data to the theory of evolution”

    Thank you for embodying the very essence of dogmatic.

    On a different note, I am quite impressed with your last answer. You have shown some expertise in a certain field.

    1. It’s not a dogmatic position: there is no evidence against the theory and there is nothing but evidence for it. It’s as ‘dogmatic’ as grasping the reality of gravity and understanding that counter claims have no validity because they have no evidence to back them up. That’s why I continue to flog the fact – and it is as much a fact as anything we know – that evolution has passed all litmus tests. There really is no evidential controversy; there is simply a claim that there is. This claim is without basis yet is used repeatedly in defense of beliefs that are contrary to what is true in fact. That’s why it is frustrating that so many people continue to resist understanding why evolution is true and how that understanding vitally informs all related knowledge and expertise derived from biology. That means animal husbandry and plant science, genetics and medicine, all the health sciences and their various technologies, ongoing research and development in pharmaceuticals and treatments, and so on. What most folk don’t realize is that all these advancements make no sense if evolution is not true but make perfect sense if it is. The fact that they all work and build upon each other is overwhelming evidence that we are on the right track, that this dependent knowledge on evolutionary theory works all the time, everywhere, yesterday and today.

      To bring such a marvelous understanding into question based only on contrary and doubtful religiously inspired beliefs in the face of so much evidence in support of it I think is a masterful job of intentional deceit aimed not at furthering our knowledge but undermining it. The major focus of this deceit is aimed at our most vulnerable population – namely, our youth – and this is why attempts to undermine the teaching of fundamental understanding continues to make education a battleground. Creationism – creeping or blatant – continues to be pushed by many local school boards into science class in spite of a string of judicial judgements defeating these creationist/Intelligent Design insertions into areas of science where they simply have no cause to be.

      Again and again, the judges point out that behind the creationist/ID push is NO SCIENCE. That’s a fact. It’s not a belief. And it is in direct response to this unwarranted deceitful attack against a well established science – evolutionary biology – that many biologists become very active gnu atheists – people like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers. These guys see their first year biology students badly confused about the science of evolution and are sick and tired of the false dichotomy religious leadership has foisted on this group of vulnerable youth between believing in god and believing in evolution. Believing in god is a faith position. Believing in evolution is a knowledge position.

      In no other science – science that conflicts with facts against beliefs just as much as they do in evolutionary biology – do we have such a concerted attack by the religious to undermine our knowledge. Not in astronomy, nor geology, nor hydrology, nor cosmology, nor physics do we have this battle. Only in biology. And that’s why Dawkins as the University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science launched a very public counter attack against creationism in particular, and why so many biologists have taken up the call to arms and are trying to stem this tide of ignorance. They do so not because they hate religion but because it the enemy of scientific knowledge. Because that’s what a rejection of evolution theory really is: an embrace of ignorance in the same way that the rejection of Galileo’s heliocentric explanation by the catholic church was an embrace of ignorance in favour of maintaining a belief that was factually wrong. Creationism – with the sole exception of abiogenesis for which we have no evidence either way – is factually wrong.

      Look, when someone pretends that evolutionary biology is wrong, what they are really saying is that the efficacy of vaccinations is a belief position., that the workings of genetics is a belief position, that inheritance is belief position, that viral mutations is a belief position, and so on. And that is not true. That is a lie. That is an intentional deceit. None of these practices and technologies is based on belief whatsoever but by a mechanistic cause and effect we call evolution. It works. Every time.

      In stark contrast, all creationism/ID can offer in place of evolutionary theory is obfuscating criticism that furthers our knowledge not one bit and utterly fails to explain how so much applicable knowledge continues to work so consistently and reliably well. It is empty of knowledge. That’s why belief in creationism/ID is ignorance in action.

      This false belief in creationism carries with it a terrific cost. It has thwarted good research for political reasons to placate religious voters who prefer their beliefs over and above what is demonstrably true. But other competitors in the world of science are not so shackled – in particular China, who threatens to take the lead in the biological sciences and their applications due wholly to the shortsighted stupidity of catering here at home to the willfully ignorant, those people who have allowed our knowledge lead to dwindle while thinking themselves pious. It is a travesty we see played out every year in university biology classes throughout the west, where students have no solid grounding in understanding the central importance of what is in fact true regarding evolutionary biology. It is this ignorance that needs to be challenged and exposed for the lie it is and any belief attached to the lie must, as the Dalai Lama himself has pointed out, change or die. The science will not because it accurately reflects what’s true; it is the religious belief that must change. There is no middle ground: creationism is wrong no matter how much heartfelt belief may arraign itself against this fact.

  3. Would you be equally as offended by the dogmatic claim that poison is bad you, or that the easter bunny is not real? You paint all dogmaticism with the same brush, as if a person dogmatically crying belief is identical to a person dogmatically crying fact.

    1. When I’m asked to conform to one interpretation of the facts to the exclusion of all others, that is dogmatic. I’m not doubting the existence of evidence, just the accepted bias that comes with it. It seems that Darwinian scientists pull you just as hard in their direction as the religious creationists do. I’m simply making a modern comparison.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s