WinAce

That particular bit of ignorance was awarded a Post of the Week on my webpage in May

Yes, these people are homeschooling =\

Arikay

My New favorite from CF:

"If science claims that one species changed into another, then that simply means they do not know what a species is."

villainess

Oh, I just remembered another good one.

I read somewhere, but cannot for the life of me remember where, a fundy book review that went off on a tangent about how Sagan, Dawkins, and most other scientists probably had Aspberger's Syndrome, which made them mean and inhuman and wanting to deny God.

I wasn't really sure which level this was most offensive on.

the.villainess

lpetrich

Seems like a case of bipolar disorder, a.k.a. manic-depression. At one moment, one feels like one is the ruler of the Universe, and at another moment, one feels like one is totally worthless.

lpetrich

It's giant panda bears, but you are right about his "reason". See his debate with Dave Thomas for more. It can be difficult to work out what he's saying, but he claims that the Earth's biota was designed to resist natural explanations like Darwinism.

Hmmm... does anyone have a picture of Mr. ReMine? I'd like to paste it onto the body of a panda.

southernhybrid

I find this thread from Rapture Ready very depressing. Many of these people claim to have a degree in science.

Ab_Normal

I'm an atheist because I'm Asperger-licious. Kewl.

lpetrich

It's not surprising that lots of "scientists" and crackpots enjoy waving that book around, because it seems like "evidence" that their views are being rejected for irrational "reasons". It's essentially a fancier way of comparing oneself to Galileo.

However, science does not usually progress in this fashion; new paradigms usually subsume or incorporate old ones rather than replace them. Relativity and quantum mechanics did not replace Newtonian mechanics, but instead, turned it into a limiting case -- both theories closely parallel Newtonianism in various ways. By comparison, Newtonianism was a big jump over earlier theories, which were usually not much more than hand-waving.

Chemistry has had an even bigger succession of paradigms:

Elements reinterpreted.
Some combinations (but not all!) were shown to obey a law of definite proportions.
Atomic theory of matter easily accounts for law of definite proportions.
Valence-bond theory accounts for what tends to combine with what in what proportion.
The Periodic Table of Elements relates different elements.
Quantum mechanics enables calculating physical and chemical properties from scratch.

Only the reinterpretation of the chemical elements away from earth-air-fire-water can be called a replacement of a previous paradigm; its successors were all built on previous paradigms in some way or other.

Though sometimes, it must be said, a breakthrough requires some conceptual leap, as in the case of the law of definite proportions. Burn some sugar, and it will consume a quantity of air in proportion to the amount of sugar burnt. Dissolve some sugar in water, and one can dissolve variable amounts of sugar up to some limit. But this was still built on the modern conception of chemical elements.

Looking in biology, the study of heredity got a big jump with the discovery of Mendelian inheritance. The later discovery that nucleic acids carry hereditary information was built on Mendelism; it explained what those inferred "genes" were.

The same is true for several other important paradigms; "true" scientific revolutions are relatively rare, and the progress of science is usually additive.

gravitybow

I recorded "Dr." Carl Baugh proposing the following on two different broadcasts: Because the pre-flood earth was 12% smaller than it is today, the gravity was greater because the density was greater.

Joe Meert

JM: Geology, as properly noted is probably one of the best examples of paradigms overturned. The first paradigm to be overturned was the young earth global flood paradigm and the second was the 'fixist' view. The replacement 'paradigms' did not subsume or incorporate the older ideas in any significant way. Nevertheless, I think you are basically correct in that wholesale changes of thought are rare in scientific circles. The most important fact that ye-creationism seems oblivious to is that change in science is a good thing, not a weakness.

Cheers

Joe Meert