Science Deniers and Laments
One of the most interesting insults that I have ever been given was that of a "serial fact denier". This was from someone who was confused that evolutionary conjectures were actually proven. Very few evolutionists have the courage to examine contrary evidence. Most of these are filtering the facts through their evolutionist worldview, and whatever does not comport with their assumptions is considered "wrong", or even "lies". Very disingenuous.
Sean B. Carroll is frustrated so many still deny evolution, but he shoots his own argument in the foot.Carroll, portrayed as wandering around the Smithsonian in ecstasy at all the exhibits showcasing evolution, was given ample space in a press release from Tufts University (echoed on PhysOrg) to rant about all the fools who disagree with him. He can’t believe that people enter the museum and continue to carry their God bias even after sights like these:
The sign in front of the tall display case at the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of Natural History lures visitors to “meet one of your oldest relatives.” Inside stands a morganucodon, a mouse-like animal from the Late Triassic period, 210 million years ago. “A close relative of this tiny creature was the first mammal on earth,” the sign says. “Its DNAwas passed on to billions of descendants, including you.”…
The facts of evolution may be written in stone and bone and DNA, but close to half the American public “accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life,” according to the Pew Research Center for People & the Press. Evolution is just one front in a broader conflict between science and individual belief.
Do not deny yourself the pleasure of reading the rest of "Evolutionist Beside Himself with 'Science Denialism'", here.
Much of the essay about “science denialism,” is buttressed with the views of fellow Tufts graduate Paul Offit. Offit and Sean B. Carroll (not to be confused with Sean C. Carroll of Caltech) positioned themselves as the promoters of reason and evidence. “All I have on my side is reason,” Offit said. “We are about evidence and weighing evidence,” Carroll said. They portrayed the “science deniers” as impermeable to evidence, being swayed instead by theistic bias or general distrust of experts. This is the either-or fallacy, overlooking the fact that science depends on belief and that many evolution skeptics are keen on scientific evidence, pointing to key evidences that evolutionists and advocates of consensus science ignore or re-interpret due to their “individual belief” (e.g., 10/12/2012, 10/08/2012, 9/26/2012).