Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
JayShel

More Tolerant Than God?

Recommended Posts

"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin." - J.Y. Chen, a Chinese Paleontologist

 

An astute observation!

 

The Chinese scientists are light years ahead of western Darwinians as it involves correctly assessing evidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there's no freedom of speech in america. You're all going to jail.

 

That didn't refer to 'jailing', rather to what happens in academia, if you launch a fundamental critique of Darwin. They will not kill you physically nor even fire you, that would be to obvious. But expect your reputation to be attacked, your funds cut off and possibilities for promotion and projects being neglected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That didn't refer to 'jailing', rather to what happens in academia, if you launch a fundamental critique of Darwin. They will not kill you physically nor even fire you, that would be to obvious. But expect your reputation to be attacked, your funds cut off and possibilities for promotion and projects being neglected.

 

Actually that's what happens if you criticize anything in science... and have no data to support your claim.

 

You can claim the earth doesn't go around the sun if you like. But if you do it without compelling evidence that can be confirmed experimentally by your peers your reputation will go down the toilet, as well it should.

 

A scientist making an assertion without evidence violates the ethics of their profession the same way a psychologist sleeping with a patient violates their professional ethics. This is a rule that applies to all assertions, not just assertions dealing with evolution.

 

Claiming this is some special rule that only applies to evolution is like claiming psychology as an institution is racist because you're only not allowed to sleep with black or jewish patients.

 

It's just false nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Actually that's what happens if you criticize anything in science... and have no data to support your claim.

 

2. You can claim the earth doesn't go around the sun if you like. But if you do it without compelling evidence that can be confirmed experimentally by your peers your reputation will go down the toilet, as well it should.

 

3. A scientist making an assertion without evidence violates the ethics of their profession the same way a psychologist sleeping with a patient violates their professional ethics. This is a rule that applies to all assertions, not just assertions dealing with evolution.

 

4. Claiming this is some special rule that only applies to evolution is like claiming psychology as an institution is racist because you're only not allowed to sleep with black or jewish patients.

 

 

I have endured evolutionist doctrination throughout my degree and have had many interesting discussions with some of my lecturers, many of whom humbly admit (in their own way) that there should be room for doubt, (one even said that his collegues were making extravagant claims from evidence which didn't directly support the claim, this is great intellectual honesty). Whilst on the most part everything was handled professionaly and that is a credit to my uni, there were some (I can think of three) who either were religiously devoted to it or I have a hunch have decreased my grade due to it (since most of the marks for one were assignment based with no criteria for marking, so was very whimsical). This is my own experience into such things

 

 

Additionally my peers automatically think I was an idiot and state as much in the university online learning forum thing.

 

 

Gladly the area I study, Biotechnology, is about applied Biology (creating new products / services) so kinda stands apart from evolution

 

 

 

 

1. I believe that one of my arguments is pointing out that the "evidence" of evolution is based on observation which is not actual evidence to determine the cause of said observations. Therefore your statement here is a blatant generalisation, in an attempt to be wishy washy and not address the issue.

 

2. Yet pointing out that the evidence for evolution doesn't fit that criteria as well is a bad thing?

 

3. Then why are evolutionists allowed to do such... As per assertions that we "evolved" from bacteria, that x fossil lead to y fossil without experimentation to back it up... etc etc etc

 

4. It does seem like a special rule for evolution since they are allowed to get away with the things you claim scientists shouldn't be doing..... Can you explain why? Otherwise it must be a special rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms