Creationist Wisdom #524: Heed the Minority

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Frederick News-Post of Frederick, Maryland. It’s titled Alternative science is valid, and the newspaper has a comments feature at the end, with 40 comments there already.

Because today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. We found some clues that he may be a urologist, but that’s not enough for full name treatment, so we’ll use only his first name, which is Robert. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Robert refers to an earlier article in that newspaper which “essentially asserts that those who do not accept evolution or a man-made global warming crisis are ignorant of basic science.” Regarding such people, Robert says:

But their ideas, though contrary to majority views, could be true as have many well founded minority views throughout history.

Yes, that sometimes happens, but all too often, contrary opinions are as useful as The Time Cube. Then Robert mentions the controversy over global warming (which we’ll ignore), and after that he tells us:

Although a large majority of scientists accept neo-Darwinism, there are thousands of Ph.D.s and other scientists who doubt this theory.

Only the Discoveroids say “neo-Darwinism,” so we know where Robert gets his information. As for the “thousands of Ph.D.s and other scientists” who doubt evolution, that’s a wild exaggeration. Even the Discoveroids’ list, which they call A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, has less than a thousand, and most of them aren’t biology professionals or scientists at all. Let’s read on:

Compulsory public school censorship of evidence unfavorable to evolution, and de facto exclusion in most universities and the main media, are reasons that most of the public, even scientists, do not know the scientific case against evolution.

Wow — the “Darwinist” censorship is so effective that even scientists don’t know the case against evolution. Fortunately, Robert knows — because he reads creationist websites. By the way, what is the case against evolution — aside from the allegedly vast number of dissenters? Maybe we’ll find out. Robert continues:

Creationists and even scientists who espouse evolution have seriously questioned traditional evidence for evolution, as well as more recent claims such as feathered dinosaurs, 1 percent similarity of human and chimpanzee genes and many alleged ape ancestors of man.

No one except creationists seriously questions the genuineness of feathered dinosaur fossils. As for that “1 percent similarity of human and chimpanzee genes,” we’ll let Robert’s words speak for themselves. Here’s more:

Ninety-eight percent of genes had long been considered junk DNA, useless remnants from ancestor species and great proof for evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! No, Robert — that’s 98% of the genome. That’s still essentially true, but it’s now more like 93%. Presumably, Robert thinks every little scrap of the genome is utterly essential. That’s what the Discoveroids think, because why else would the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — have put it in our genome? Ah well, moving along:

But they now have been discovered to play crucial roles in regulating other genes. This is an important breakthrough for understanding and treating many diseases.

He’s still confused about the difference between “genes” and “genome,” Anyway, some small fraction of what had been regarded as junk DNA has been found to play a regulatory role. The rest still seems to be junk. The last time we wrote about that was a month ago: Hey Casey! Our Genome Is 93% Junk. Here’s how the letter ends:

Indoctrination, censorship and political correctness are often enemies of an open exchange of ideas and scientific progress.

Powerful criticism indeed! With brave souls like Robert, maybe the long-suppressed minority view will finally see the light of day. Won’t that be wonderful?

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #524: Heed the Minority

  1. Yes, sometimes it is only one person who is right.
    But in order to be right, one has to have something to say. All of those smart people who are doubters, what have they to show for all of those years of smart-thinking?
    They have demonstrated that they are not even interested in speculating on what happened, when and where, why or how, so that something other than evolution results in the variety of life as it is, rather than any of the countless other ways it could be.
    When somebody proposes an alternative, only then will there be something to talk about.

  2. I had a creationist coworker give me a list of 100,000 scientists that don’t accept evolution. If I can find it, I will post it, or a portion of it, somewhere and place a link here. It didn’t have the obvious deficiencies of the ID list – outside fields, misleading statement – but I didn’t have time to dig into it further.

  3. @surpriseaplenty
    I find it, er, fascinating, that there would be 100,000 scientists interested in a particular topic without there being a trace of any theory of that topic.

  4. Lots and lots and lots of duplicated names on that list, I’ll bet, along with the names of anti-evolution petition signers who flunked high school science.

  5. I bet Newton, Herschel and Faraday are on that list.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    Dude, you lost me at feathered dinosaur … even Ken Ham can see the feathers on the dinosaur fossil. Wait he says it’s a bird. Okay, look at the teeth on the bird fossil. Oops, its a dinosaur with a breastbone. I mean its a bird with a bony tail. Starting to sound as pathetic as Daffy Duck…

  7. “Alternative science is valid”? Maybe in an alternative universe, but not this one. There’s no such thing as “alternative science”, any more than there’s such a thing as “alternative reality”. By definition, any alternative to science is not science.

  8. “Indoctrination, censorship and political correctness are often enemies of an open exchange of ideas and scientific progress.”

    Since when are cretinists, ‘Roids and IDers censored in any way? Where would the world be without its daily dose of p–sing and whining about how censored they are? If they spent some of that time looking for evidence to support their claims then maybe….. but we all know that wont happen.

  9. @Jack Hensley
    You bring up the lack of evidence.
    I suggest that the sore point is rather the lack of any account of how things got to be the way they are.
    Without an alternative to evolution, it is idle to talk about evidence – evidence for what?

  10. @Charles D

    Actually Daffy Duck is the perfect mascot for these people, constantly angery, yelling, outwited and wrong.

  11. Alternative Science?? Do you know what alternative science is called when it is shown to be true???…..SCIENCE!!! (hat tip to Tim)

    The argument….”But their ideas, though contrary to majority views, could be true as have many well founded minority views throughout history.”…
    Is essentially false.
    People like comparing themselves to Galileo. But he was NOT a lone person who was right, He was one scientist among others who also thought his way but they were not persecuted (somewhat) by the church and he just had the PROOF of what was believed by others. In fact the RCC KNEW HE WAS RIGHT but they wanted to suppress the info until they could spin it in their favor.

  12. @L.Long
    I beg to differ about Galileo. What made his case was not the number of people who agreed with him, but that he had a case to make. Copernicus, Kepler and the others weren’t saying:
    Ptolemy and Aristotle were wrong. Therefore I’m right.
    What they were promoting was an alternative description of the motions of the heavens (and Earth), which accounted for everything that the old geocentric model accounted for, and which had advantages over the old model.
    They didn’t try to get their model taught to children. They did work on refining their model.

  13. People – many of these newspaper outlets will let you join but then block you from commenting on the thread you were on when you joined. I guess this is to prevent swarms of comments from nonsubscribers. Thwart them by always finding another article to comment on, attempt to comment and then join there. That way, when you return to the site to comment you will be able to comment on the article/opinion you wish to.