Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence.11

By stating that there is no “serious” scientific doubt, Scott neatly eliminates the possibility that non-evolutionary scientists can provide a valid case for their hypotheses or conclusions. This stance is presented even more strongly in her book Evolution vs. Creationism.

I love this part. Why? Because this is a prime example of “moron” if there ever was one. Can you smell the fallacy? Or it is one example of intentional warping of what was quoted. If the latter is true, then I agree, this IS an enemies list despite the absence of “enemy” on the page.

like other systems of belief, it [science] has its clerics (those invested as scientific authorities), its adherents (e.g., the education system and the media), its mission (to apply its “truth” to every sphere of human endeavor through research in the fields of biology, geology, cosmology, psychology, etc.)–

Hmm .. Interesting : ASTRONOMY doesn’t rate a mention there yet cosmology does.

Maybe if the Bad Astronomer called himself the Bad Cosnmologer instead he’d make their list …???

——– TAKE II —————————-

# Paul on 14 May 2008 at 1:36 pm

You could try changing the title of your next book. Instead of “Death From the Skies,” you could call it, “Creationism Sucks.”

That would, of course, be cheating.

… But then writing a whole new book on just that anti-Kreationist topic under that name could get your name on that much-desired “enemies” listing fair & square!

Plus I’m sure you’d make it an entertaining read and it’d quite probably a therapeutic, cathartic write for you ..
There you go, Phil another book post ‘Death from the Skies!’ will be a good idea – you’ve even got the title already!

# Paul on 14 May 2008 at 1:36 pm

You could try changing the title of your next book. Instead of “Death From the Skies,” you could call it, “Creationism Sucks.”

That would, of course, be cheating.

… But then writing a whole new book on just that anti-Kreationist topic under that name could get your name on that much-desired “enemies” listing fair & square!

Plus I’m sure you’d make it an entertaining read and it’d quite probably a therapetutic, cathartic write for you ..
There you go Phil another book that’s the idea!

# FREQFORCE on 14 May 2008 at 9:03 am

c) people who believe that they are receiving telepathic transmissions from Neptune instructing them to assault government officials with a weed-wacker.

Phew!

That had me worried there for a sec but luckily all my telepathic transmissions telling me to assault govt officials with a weed-whacker (& the odd lawn-mower & chainsaw too) are coming from Pluto instead!

typos ftw.. your

Someone in church must’ve really done you wrong, bud.

Yes, that’s exactly why most atheists become atheists and why Phil became a skeptic blogging astronomer.

Good job Matt. You’re skills of deduction are as sharp as ever.

…is false. Here is the ICR taking a cheap shot:
“Although using cruder language, Myers basically offers nothing new to the debate. He may state his case more brusquely than other evolutionists, but the argument essentially remains the same–evolution is fact, evolution vs. creationism is a case of science vs. religion, science and religion are anathema to each other, therefore scientific creationism should be banished to the lunatic fringe.

“No matter where the evidence leads.”
(ICR, from that link)

As a side note, notwithstanding how accurate the “No matter where the evidence leads” assessment of PZ may or may not be, something appears severely messed up about the Institute for CREATION RESEARCH to actually put this statement on one of their web pages, and doubly messed up to even use it as an attack on someone else.

I still say this isn’t a “creationist hit list” aka enemy list. Do I get to say that as a skeptic? Because it does in fact look like it’s just an ordinary short list of a few popular major vocalists to me.

Still, call me crazy, but I really don’t see the logical relationship between this not being an enemy list and the earth being 6,000 years old. Even introducing the intermediate “lemma” that the only reason this was referred to as an enemy list was that there’s no way to prove the earth is older than 6,000 years old doesn’t do this for me, since the lemma seems to have the same issues. Can the YECers who are trying to turn a non-argument into a proof enlighten me here?

(Did I attack enough viewpoints? I swear I’m not just trolling–I honestly think everyone’s wrong!)

When they actually have some genuinely peer reviewed evidence, or even if they ever actually put forward a falsifiable hypotheses, come and talk to us. Until then, give the BS from AIG and their ilk a rest, we are tired of it.

I don’t know about anyone else, but if I were to cite the Bible at school in a research paper… well, it would go over worse than citing Wikipedia.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (gasp) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Now, if, like me you frequent a number of forums and frequently engage in the verbal slaughtering and mocking of numerous fundies, you’re BOUND to be on someone’s enemy list.

How about it, Matt? Wanna start one and add a few names from here onto your list? I know you’re tempted! C’mon!

“Dear sirs,

I’ve just seen your excellent article number 3860 where you list some brilliant advocates of evolution, like Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott and P Z Myers. I wonder, would you please be kind enough to add my name to the list? I have a CSE and 25 credits in astronomy, so I am scientifically qualified and I am totally opposed to creationism, intelligent design and religion, even more radically than Dawkins or Myers. Both Dawkins and Myers have also made use of a video diatribe against religion I posted on youtube under the name ‘alien8ted’ called ‘Religion – Marcus Brigstocke’. I would be very proud indeed to have my name up there with the other greats who oppose every you stand for. My real name is Gary Mcleod and I live in England.

Thank you.”

I’ll let you know if they let me appear!

My bad. I see what you mean. Religions whine loudly–no doubt.

Mea culpa.

That almost makes me want to take up smoking just out of spite. Almost. But I kind of like to breathe more, so…

I’m not one of those who complains about personal attacks detracting from the discussion, so I dunno why you’d think that.

As for the rest, I think you read my post backward. I was just talking about the dominant religious culture’s frequent whining about being suppressed simply for not being allowed to dictate policy without criticism.

We are all free (fortunately or unfortunately) to harass and condemn each other, no matter how abhorrent that idea may strike you. I’m not talking about “stalking” harassment, or other harassment (like sexual, etc.). And yes, we are free to be bigots–our country, and esp. perhaps its churches, are full of them.

A street preacher yelling at you is unpleasant, but I doubt that constitutes suppression.

Harassment is not necessarily suppression and bigotry. Harassment is harassment.