Fidhooki,
To disagree on this particular subject would be to discuss a particular interpretation of embryology in the context of evo-devo.
To bring up the mythical global flood of noah to explain the fossil record - is not to disagree. It is to proudly display an ignorance so profound that it
is staggering to hear in an adult in this fucking century. In all seriousness, if you see that as merely a disagreement, there is a monumental intellectual
disconnect somewhere.
Do you consider the Global Flood of Noah an adequate explanation for the fossil record? Or the Bible being the "the greatest history book man has ever
known" (That one sentence alone demonstrates that he does not have an understanding of how history is studied, which goes along nicely with his fucking
ignorance of science and the scientific method.)
What he is displaying, in no uncertain terms, is that he is either profoundly, epically, ignorant (unlikely); or deliberately pushing a particular agenda
that places the story of his particular imaginary friend over the hard won discoveries of science. That he communicates that ignorance using the tools
developed by that same science is fucking sickening.
He has demonstrated either a profound dishonesty or a deliberate, cultured, stupidity. Not exactly what I look for when I evaluate journalistic
integrity.
To disagree on this particular subject would be to discuss a particular interpretation of embryology in the context of evo-devo.
To bring up the mythical global flood of noah to explain the fossil record - is not to disagree. It is to proudly display an ignorance so profound that it
is staggering to hear in an adult in this fucking century. In all seriousness, if you see that as merely a disagreement, there is a monumental intellectual
disconnect somewhere.
Do you consider the Global Flood of Noah an adequate explanation for the fossil record? Or the Bible being the "the greatest history book man has ever
known" (That one sentence alone demonstrates that he does not have an understanding of how history is studied, which goes along nicely with his fucking
ignorance of science and the scientific method.)
What he is displaying, in no uncertain terms, is that he is either profoundly, epically, ignorant (unlikely); or deliberately pushing a particular agenda
that places the story of his particular imaginary friend over the hard won discoveries of science. That he communicates that ignorance using the tools
developed by that same science is fucking sickening.
He has demonstrated either a profound dishonesty or a deliberate, cultured, stupidity. Not exactly what I look for when I evaluate journalistic
integrity.