- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
From my perspective, it appears that she does this to enhance the apparent contrast between current thought (which is really a pretty broad spectrum) with her ideas about symbiogenesis. But when the dust settles, I'm not sure the positions are necessarily as diametrically opposed as suggested.
(From LWM's link:)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/lynn_margulis_blog_tour.php
That is the worst hatchet job you have done in a while!
The quote above, with no attribution, is pure fantasy. Dr. Margulis is pointing out the vast difficulties real scientists have in overcoming the religion of Darwinism. This is not a fight between uneducated TV preachers and evolutionists; rather a fight between evolutionists and dogmatic Darwinists.
She consented to take questions on her revolutionary theories in a most hostile venue, and was asked about HIV!!!
Jesus, Joseph, and Mary.
It seems a similar dynamic is happening here.
Ron Paul ( a physician and hence someone who knows better) says he doubts evolution. He's doing so because a significant portion of his base object to science on religious grounds and he doesn't want to alienate them.
This is clearly dishonest.
The dishonesty is all yours, what a hack you are.
Ron Paul claimed that Darwinism is not a 'fact' and that he did not enter politics to discuss such trivial matters. Do you really think he would force public schools to teach Ted Steele's neo-Lamarckism?
You present the false choice of the church of Darwin v. the church of the rabid creationist fundamentalists.
Shame on you, to toss your honesty overboard over such a trivial matter. (to the state of the nation)
Bucky, who has made it clear that he DOES believe in evolution has nevertheless found himself in a position where he needs to defend Ron Paul so he pretends that there's some rigid orthodoxy that I am defending other than a belief in the lawfulness of nature and the validity of the scientific method. In doing so he creates a controversy that needn't exist all of which is needed to provide cover for the pandering of his hero to his base.
This too, is clearly dishonest.
-- Paul Dirks
You fail as a mind reader; but you do OK for a liar.
Both the rigid orthodoxy of the church and the rigid orthodoxy of the Darwinists is standing in the way of scientific progress and in the way of science education.
You would do much better in an attack on Ron Paul to bring up the latest immigration commercial. That was pandering to the base and you would get no disagreement from me --- and yet you lie about him and evolution!
You do understand that he thinks education is a state matter and the Presidency should have no authority over local education matters, no?
