How NOT to fall for the fallacy. Q:"Ron Paul dangerous for denying Evolution and Science"? A:"Do your homework, 1st. Get a clue"

Was just a piece of my fair share. I do agree there are more important subjects. But this big old evil lie is really something that I cannot stand anymore in a 21st century equipped with a WWW.

People HAVE the right to know better than what these LIARS serve them endlessly.

that's why I always jokingly tell those around me that the world is as is, until the next physicist dies off taking his prevailing theories with him.

'we know how the world works,' until after one physicist dies off, then a new punk comes along with a different model trying to explain away the same: the only constant in the Uni(multi?)verse is that we DON'T know ANYTHING.

frankly modern 'science' is nothing more than grant-whoredom. it's always been political ever since the Vatican decided to split the two, a couple of centuries ago.

just like Taleb's Black Swan, modern arrogant economists are running around in circles to come up with an algorithm that perfectly tries to lock down an ever itinerant variable: Human Action.

So no matter how 'smart' they think they are, what good is a computer model be they economics or climatology, when the models were formulated based on erroneous assumptions? Any result from such model should be analyzed with heavy skepticism or outright dismissal, but it's the human ego that drives them, to be the master of a domain that they know nothing about, because they never admit the first fundamental step to begin with: that they do not know.

the world in which we exist obviously operates based on a set of rules that we're always 'discovering.' who or what created it all? we'll never truly know for certain unless there ever comes a time in which we can all travel back to the very beginning of the uni(multi?)-verse, and see what jerk or thing set up all these crazy rules.

now, what are the chances of that ever happening?

frankly for me, my most disappointing day was when I found out years ago that physicists have no F'ng clue what causes gravity. Some say iron ores, some invisible electromagnetic field, soliton waves, or graviton particles (which is your Ivy Leaguer's way of saying I'm just gonna name something to describe something I don't know).

And gravity itself is NOT a constant, nor is speed of light for that matter.

So what is a truly known constant, other than the fact that we're all here, but don't know WHY or who really made us, started our genetic lineage, who in the world decided that all living organisms should be made up of various combinations of a Quaternary/base-4 alphanumeric algorithm/computer language consisting of "ACTG" ??

Unless the 'leading physicists' can settle on that, they have as much credibility to me as Paul Krugman.

frankly, modern 'science' like all other areas of politics, it's all about power. & frankly in some ways, they enjoy more power as the rest of the world's denizenry's worldview about our very origins and the nature of the world we live in, by and large, are determined by WHAT they say it is.

it's not as if some random farmer 'discovered' gravity, it's not as if some construction worker 'discovered' quantum mechanics, though not to say that a profession would preclude one from discovering such.

in fact, the modern 'scientists' are nothing more than the Vatican's clergy of yore. they deem it in their powers to decide HOW and WHAT the world is (no matter how temporary the reign of their prevailing theory may be or become), to be dictated to the rest of us.

You make a very valid point, btw:

"[...]or their willingness to admit the unbreakable second law of thermodynamics (which says energy is never created nor destroyed, it only changes form) applies to our economy?"

Ah, so true! (as for being a MUCH more relevant topic to discuss)

I so wish more people would pay more attention to THAT sort of questions, too.

So, I totally agree with you : yes, that's their strategy, to mislead, distract people, from the REAL scientific issues ... that, could they be addressed, would have us living in a better place.

But that's so much easier for them to come back with the meaningless, irrelevant, idiotic opposition between science and faith in the abstract, rather than showing care for what's important for the country.

"Does that mean they are no longer scientists?"

Answer is "no". Obviously.

That doesn't mean they aren't scientists, that just means they don't like the Evolution model and/or its theories.

They may or may not come with a better model... And "better" or not will be left to the appreciation of other scientists, anyway.

But the important matter is : science models ARE in perpetual motion, by very construction of science.

And it's not because a model is popular or successful for long, OR VERY LONG, that it is the only valid model.

Serious scientists joke often with the bittersweet :

"The only thing we know, is we know nothing."

If scientists were AS ARROGANT AS some politicians, there would be ONLY ONE school of science(s) TOLERATED AND ALLOWED.

FACT : that is obviously NOT the case.

Hence, science ACCEPTS competition, by its very nature.

And has NO claim over "Truth" -- whichever Truth that may be. And certainly not the Truth that faith is concerned about.

So, by any means, again, science is CERTAINLY NOT, specifically, about finding the imaginary "ultimate Truth of the creation" (or absence thereof)

Science is for Mankind to find ways, at the end of the day, to live BETTER and SAFER in the world (thru applications hoped for, or undergoing development)

Thank you, yes, that was point's rationale :

"We don't know how God created everything. We just know that He did. Whether He just said a word or whether he used evolution, it is irrelevant. It doesn't make a lick of difference if someone fully believes in evolution, or fully believes in creationism, or believes something else."

I just felt compelled to give a refresher about what is science about AND what it is not.

And why one's faith has no justification, NOR denial whatsoever to provide to science's claims.

AS MUCH AS for the other way round.

Claiming otherwise, in my opinion, is done for dishonest and manipulation purposes.