Joined: April 2005
On the Uncommon Pissant thread, someone calling himself "PhishyPhred" suggests that the public statements of every major scientific organization on the ID vs. evolution "controversy" should be ignored in favor of the opinion of one retired chemist who has elected to spend his sunset years promoting the agenda of the religious right:
|ah so...we have Russell Who??? with credentials? saying evolution is important to his work on an obscure message board read by no one important against NAS member Phil Skell asking 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. Every one said NO. please...please...who do I believe...Phil Skell in Scientist or this Russell person who posts his important sayings on Uncommon Pissant???|
|Phred should definitely believe Skell, because clearly he's only interested in opinions that confirm his. But in his budding comedy career, Phred has really got a handle on the irony thing: in one sentence, sneering at "credentials" as the last resort of a losing argument, and in the next, reverently touting Skell's membership in the National Academies of Science. |
For anyone seriously interested in the consensus of the most highly honored scientists, I would be the first to direct you to the statements of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academies of Science (the whole body; not just one religious-right chemist opining about biology), and any reputable scientific organization you can think of over the random thoughts of one Russell Who. (Who, incidentally, reserves his more serious observations for the peer-reviewed, professional literature).
|russell you must have reading problem...skell asked 70 eminent researchers if darwin theory guided them...70 said no...my choice not pissant russell who? vs. phil skell in scientist it phil skell and 70 eminent researchers against pissant who?...skell go on to say his colleague will not rock darwin boat in public so we can not trust "official" NAS position...so save the drama for your mama...now i ask earlier if phil skell a liar...do you say he a liar?...please give me quote to spread around from russell who? is phil skell a liar?|
("PhishyPhred", who describes himself as an aspiring comic, apparently affects this sort of pidgin English as part of his shtick. )
Anyway, to clarify: Here on this message board, readers can weigh Phishy's credibility against mine. Out there in the real world, it's not me vs. Phil Skell; it's Phil Skell against the world of science. Also, I didn't bring up my "credentials", or my work. I was responding to a specific question from "Avocationist" about the importance of evolution in vaccine research - in which I happen to be employed. I guess Phishy will hide behind his hilarious non-English speaker persona to excuse his failure to follow the conversation.
Skell was, in fact, at one time a brilliant chemist. But if he really believes that the,yes, overwhelming majority of the NAS, the AAAS, and every other scientific organization on record is against him because they're afraid of rocking the Darwinian boat... I have to say, I don't think that's very rational.
Is he a "liar"? I don't know. I doubt it. I suspect he's a True Believer. But without knowing who they are, I'm not assuming that his 70+ scientists are randomly selected and representive of any population other than Friends of Phil, or likely to be deemed "eminent" in the world of biological science.
And, Phishy, did I not explicitly advise you to believe Skell over me?
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.