Bernhard.visscher said:That's because there aren't any professional evolutionary biologists.
Apart from all the tens of thousands of professional evolutionary biologists, you're completely right!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bernhard.visscher said:That's because there aren't any professional evolutionary biologists.
hackenslash said:Bora Zivkovic was a blog editor for SciAm who resigned over a sexual harassment issue. I note that he has some papers in the physiology literature, and he's done various studies in the pineal gland in quail.
As for the quote, I don't think there's actually anything objectionable there in reality. It's a reflection of what Terry Pratchett called 'lies to children'. When we start children off teaching them physics, we teach them classical mechanics first, including Newtonian gravity. We know that Newtonian gravity is wrong, but it's easy to grasp, and forms a platform from which understanding general relativity is considerably easier than if we went straight at it without the grounding of a simpler model.
It's a fairly well-accepted function of pedagogy in education. I remember a story an physicist mate told me years ago about his route through education in which, at every stage of his education, his lecturers would tell him something along the lines of 'right, forget everything you think you know about physics, because we're going to tell you how it really is'.
In all honesty, I don't think this quote even remotely meets your criterion of lying in the promotion of evolution, it's merely a recognition of the fact that educators sometimes have barriers to learning that they have to find ways of overcoming. Some of these barriers will be in the form of having no foundational framework upon which to place the models in order to understand them, others in the form of biases that preclude acceptance unless some method of circumventing biases can be found.
He certainly didn't lie about evolution in there, he simply didn't disabuse them of their preconceptions, and used NOMA to do so. NOMA is indeed complete bollocks (and Gould himself acknowledged this) but, as he says, if thinking of science and religion as pertaining to different magisteria means that barriers to learning aren't put up, I see no problem with it.
Everything on this forum is written.Bernhard.visscher said:When you don't accept Jesus you simply are condemning all Christians.
For Jesus condemns every last man or women who denies Him.
It is written
You are positively scared shitless of muslims. Your posts reek of fear of people you don't know. So does your facebook page.Bernhard.visscher said:I don't fear muslims. ... I'm comparing muslims to atheists
Rumraket said:Everything on this forum is written.Bernhard.visscher said:When you don't accept Jesus you simply are condemning all Christians.
For Jesus condemns every last man or women who denies Him.
It is written
See? In any other context that sentence would make no sense. "When you don't accept Bob you simply are condemning all Smiths." Does that make any sense? Of course not. What does "accept" mean? How can I just "accept" someone? How does that work? Is this just me being limited in the English language? Or is that sentence a few words short? Though, as I said, I have the same experience with Finnish theists also. They use language in a different way when talking about their delusions and ignorance.Bernhard.visscher said:When you don't accept Jesus you simply are condemning all Christians.
As George Carlin noted: "But He loves you!" And again, what does "deny" mean here? I have a feeling that there are some words missing again.For Jesus condemns every last man or women who denies Him.
So it is. Does anyone else than a religious person think that this is a proper way to write? Nope, only they could use this kind of language.It is written