 | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) Such as, for instance, positing "Creation Science" as if it were science. (...) No one is blaming you for the ignorance of others, but others' ignorance doesn't excuse them, either. The fact is that certain people are pushing an agenda to have (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Markus Wolf
| | | | | (...) I guess the problem I have is that the peppered moth was shown as THE proof of evolution in our time to the masses. There should be some sort of accountability that expresses, "We were wrong here" in a very public way. You can't be so (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —David Eaton
| | | | | | (...) I certainly agree-- but who? Let's say we discovered that, oh, I dunno, Rome didn't 'fall' to the Visigoths, but instead some disease infested the city and they were forced to relocate. But the Romans, not wanting to appear as though Gods (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) Maybe, but only insofar as the peppered moth was espoused as proof in a very public way, which it wasn't. Correction in future texts would be appropriate, as would a mention of the erroneous conclusions about the moth. For that matter, in my (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
