Stories as Science for Fun and Profit
One problem we have in dealing with Darwin's Drones is that they believe yarn-spinners in the science industry, then they spread that stuff as if it was genuine scientific research. It's bad enough that they believe unsubstantiated conjectures such as the Oort cloud (gotta keep the universe old, Pilgrim), but they spread tentative findings as well. The science press doesn't help matters much, what with spreading propaganda and all.
The criticism that common-ancestry scientists are telling Just So Stories is appropriate, since they've engaged in Making Stuff Up® for many years. Many times, the stories have village evolutionists stampeding to their keyboards to spread the "news", and then they are forgotten. Other times, false science ends up in textbooks, where discredited material languishes for years. Now scientists are flaunting their storytelling abilities (and getting paid for not doing serious science) in their efforts to deny the Creator. Again, who pays these people?
The criticism that common-ancestry scientists are telling Just So Stories is appropriate, since they've engaged in Making Stuff Up® for many years. Many times, the stories have village evolutionists stampeding to their keyboards to spread the "news", and then they are forgotten. Other times, false science ends up in textbooks, where discredited material languishes for years. Now scientists are flaunting their storytelling abilities (and getting paid for not doing serious science) in their efforts to deny the Creator. Again, who pays these people?
Some evolutionists not only own up to just-so storytelling; they parade it.To read the rest, click on "Evolutionists Boast of Storytelling". Also recommended: "Silly Stories Demean Science".
Evolutionary biologists have been shamed about storytelling for decades, often by their own colleagues. For instance, back in 2004, George Williams—an influential evolutionist—expressed his disgust with some of his colleagues who exchanged scientific rigor for ad-hoc scenarios (5/31/04). The storytellers would claim that any adaptation “had evolved because it provided some benefit” to an individual or population. Anyone can imagine a benefit leading to a trait, but where is the connection between cause and effect? In fact, as we have pointed out, it’s illogical to say something “evolved to” do something, because natural selection is supposed to be blind and purposeless. One case Williams heard about was the notion that dying of the elderly “evolved to do it so we get out of the way, so the young people can go on maintaining the species.” He called this “absolute nonsense” and called on his fellows to act more scientific. This was also a theme of the late Stephen Jay Gould, who dubbed the storytelling habit “Darwinian fundamentalism.” The phrase “just-so story” is itself pejorative to Darwinism, reflecting a caricature of explanation like the childish stories of that name written by Rudyard Kipling for children. Scientists are supposed to do better.