But Douglas, since we too are just accidents after “billions and billions” of years of random accidents how are we to know what is aggressive and what is moderate? Let alone acronyms of a symbolic language?

I thought it was, “Stand TFU” as in don’t be such an ape and use your brain.

“STFU stands for Shut The Flap Up.

What’s the problem?”

The problem is that with only a few, fairly probable, minor mutations, and a repetitive addition, “Shut the Flap Up” can evolve into something a bit more agressive.

Since little in the theory is, strictly speaking, “scientific fact” – outside that mutations and selection occurs – anyone with a brain can evaluate it’s prime directive and tenets from simple logic and a well informed data basis.

NDE biology is hardly a “hard” science.

It is largely narrative in nature – not that data-factual. And nothing at all like math.

You can literally take any number of the typical Darwinian narratives that attempt to explain the data from the NDE stance and explain it better using an ID stance. Period.

90 something % of human DNA matches chimps? NDE says that means we descended from primates. The conclusion does not follow the premise.
We also share 50% DNA with bananas. Does that mean bananas are 50% human? Or humans are 50% banana? (Well I can think of a few… L. Moran for ex.)

No degree is needed to see the many logical, factual, smoke & mirrors flaws in that kind of junk logic at all. Just a good mind for critical analysis using the rules of logic.

NDE logic cripples the mind. It’s pretzel logic. High in fiber, makes great dung – nothing more.

What’s the problem?

I am convinced unlike wolves and German Shepherds, you cannot be domesticated.

Once a Marine, always a Marine. Semper Fi!

OK, I’m just a civy, but its fun to say in support. Not that I approve personally Marine language in a response to elitist scientist, but old dogs… you know

I agree that most scientists believe in the standard dogma. But there are plenty of really smart people who don’t. More all the time. Don’t you just hate that?

Beautiful. ROFL.

I heart Dr. Cook.

You just can’t talk to some people.

For some reason, they’re all under the impression they’re the gold standard of civility and reasonable discourse!

You can’t discuss an issue when the other side refuses to even accept that you even have a working brain. I don’t think they realize it, but their arrogant, self righterous, know-it-all attitude turns even more people away from their side of the argument,

We took the position that yes, fluoride was good for children’s teeth, and no, it didn’t cause ugliness or the decline of civilization and it wasn’t a communist plot.

Come on, you ought to know that telling people something isn’t a communist plot is enough to make them suspicious of a communist plot.

It’s funny how serious people can get over things like that. “Disagree with me, eh? I’ll get you!” Good on you for sticking to your guns against irrational opponents.

Gorski’s fuming isn’t nearly so malignant, however, as the reaction I got a few years ago to a column on water fluoridation.
The issue of whether to fluouridate the public drinking water was on the ballot. With a dentist friend of mine I wrote a column for the local newspaper in support of the proposition. We took the position that yes, fluoride was good for children’s teeth, and no, it didn’t cause ugliness or the decline of civilization and it wasn’t a communist plot.

The hue and cry from a certain segment of the local populace was truly astonishing; you’d think we’d killed and eaten all their babies.

A group of Concerned Citizens, led by a lawyer, petitioned the state Board of Professional Licensing to revoke our licenses to practice medicine and dentistry! For an opinion piece in the newspaper! Right here in the land of Freedom of Speech!

We laugh about it now, but for awhile it wasn’t too funny; we had to talk to lawyers ourselves (always a distasteful experience) (I’m joking if there are any lawyers reading this. Mostly.).

Fortunately we received strong support from the newspaper’s main editorial board and several columnists, as well as many letters to the editor.

The proposition to fluoridate passed by 1%. I like to think I can take some of the credit for the narrow victory.

That little story doesn’t have anything to do with the evolution debate except to demonstrate another example of an emotional response to a challenge to someone’s worldview. This happens all the time when materialism is challenged.

To be fair, it also happens a lot when believers in god are challenged on their particular beliefs.
And for the same reasons, I think: in my experience it’s often when the believers aren’t totally confident in their beliefs, and/or are not open to the possibility that they may be wrong. Insecurity or a closed mind (sometimes both) are behind this sort of response.