Comments on: A wad of fraud, falsified data, and other award-winning tenure strategies … http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-wad-of-fraud-falsified-data-and-other-award-winning-tenure-strategies/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:31:34 +0000 hourly 1 By: Domoman http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-wad-of-fraud-falsified-data-and-other-award-winning-tenure-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-300611 Domoman Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:52:42 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=4204#comment-300611 Wait, I was talking about molecular research, not human-relatedness to chimps. But I might be missing a joke. xD Wait, I was talking about molecular research, not human-relatedness to chimps. But I might be missing a joke. xD

]]> By: VUGear http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-wad-of-fraud-falsified-data-and-other-award-winning-tenure-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-300594 VUGear Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:08:18 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=4204#comment-300594 I heard the figure has now been upped to 99.5%... I heard the figure has now been upped to 99.5%…

]]> By: Domoman http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-wad-of-fraud-falsified-data-and-other-award-winning-tenure-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-300586 Domoman Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:01:09 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=4204#comment-300586 And don't forget Haeckel's embryos still being distributed throughout America's educational classrooms. The idea that 99 percent of "molecular research had subsequently been refuted" I found rather disturbing. Is it because the scientists jump to conclusions, or is it because they were lazy and didn't bother to find true reasons for molecular processes? For that matter, what <i>exactly</i> in their research was refuted? Makes me feel like I can't trust scientific research now! (Well, not that I could trust it very much to begin with because of all the naturalistic ideology going around. :P) And don’t forget Haeckel’s embryos still being distributed throughout America’s educational classrooms.

The idea that 99 percent of “molecular research had subsequently been refuted” I found rather disturbing. Is it because the scientists jump to conclusions, or is it because they were lazy and didn’t bother to find true reasons for molecular processes? For that matter, what exactly in their research was refuted? Makes me feel like I can’t trust scientific research now! (Well, not that I could trust it very much to begin with because of all the naturalistic ideology going around. :P )

]]>