For years, industrial sites that once fueled the city’s economy have sat idle and deteriorating in and around residential areas. Now, the brownfields are presenting an opportunity for residents to re-invent their neighborhoods.
No, I agree about Parson, but Burnett is a different sort of crackpot, because it's not a good thing when the counterbalancing entity acts reactionarily to any and all science that a creationist might be waving around, and trust me, that is killing science in both relevant fields of biology and cosmology.
Cosmology:
Brandon Carter noted in very formal company that scientists are reactionarily predisposed toward counter-reactionism against old historical beliefs about geocentrism and religion that causes them to automatically dismiss any relevance to features of the universe that also permit our existence, and this leads to equally absurd Copernican-(like) cosmological extensions, which do not agree with observation.
Carter's example was as follows:
"Unfortunately, there has been a strong and not always subconscious tendency to extend this to a most questionable dogma to the effect that our situation cannot be privileged in any sense. This dogma (which in its most extreme form led to the "perfect cosmological principle" on which the steady state theory was based) is clearly untenable, as was pointed out by Dicke (Nature 192, 440, 1961)." -Brandon Carter
Biology
Lynn Margulis, as the honored guest speaker at the last evolution conference, speaking to her "peers":
"The problem with neo-Darwinism is that Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist. I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point." -Lynn Margulis
It isn't healthy when it predisposes scientists toward willful ignorane and outright conscious denial of plausible science, and it caused ole Paul to wrongly and reactionarily identify me, (an atheist), as a creationist, elsewhere.
Paul Burnett gave himself away: " " It is obvious from looking at the website that it is crafted for readers who are ignorant of actual science but impressed by big words, devout Christians, right-wing conservatives and such. " "
I do not want to appear as if I am supporting the ID movement, (because I don't), but I do want to point out that Paul is more interested in fighting an ideologically motivated culture war, than he is in promoting honest science. This is a clear example of the equal but antifanatical agenda that "neodarwinian bullies" harbor.
People like Paul are no more honest than creationists are, so science and education have absolutely nothing to do with the motivations that are behind their insults.
Posted on January 29 at 5:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I agree about Parson, but Burnett is a different sort of crackpot, because it's not a good thing when the counterbalancing entity acts reactionarily to any and all science that a creationist might be waving around, and trust me, that is killing science in both relevant fields of biology and cosmology.
Cosmology:
Brandon Carter noted in very formal company that scientists are reactionarily predisposed toward counter-reactionism against old historical beliefs about geocentrism and religion that causes them to automatically dismiss any relevance to features of the universe that also permit our existence, and this leads to equally absurd Copernican-(like) cosmological extensions, which do not agree with observation.
Carter's example was as follows:
"Unfortunately, there has been a strong and not always subconscious tendency to extend this to a most questionable dogma to the effect that our situation cannot be privileged in any sense. This dogma (which in its most extreme form led to the "perfect cosmological principle" on which the steady state theory was based) is clearly untenable, as was pointed out by Dicke (Nature 192, 440, 1961)."
-Brandon Carter
Biology
Lynn Margulis, as the honored guest speaker at the last evolution conference, speaking to her "peers":
"The problem with neo-Darwinism is that Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist. I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point."
-Lynn Margulis
It isn't healthy when it predisposes scientists toward willful ignorane and outright conscious denial of plausible science, and it caused ole Paul to wrongly and reactionarily identify me, (an atheist), as a creationist, elsewhere.
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/orland...
On Education Report: Creationism, intelligent design have no place in science courses