Quote:
|
Unfortunately, many "scientists" could be lumped into this catagory. I have recently read an article in the March 2003 Scientific American describing a possible mechanism for the evolution of feathers in dinosaurs and birds. The authors, Richard Prum and Alan Brush conclude their essay by stating "Creationists and other evolutionary skeptics have long pointed to feathers as a favorite example of the insufficiency of evolutionary theory. ... Now, in an ironic about-face, feathers offer a sterling example of how we can best study the origin of an evolutionary novelty..."
|
The reason that is mentioned is not to show a bias of scientists, it's to refute the creationists nonsensical arguments against those 'dinobirds'. Creationists have been saying that the birds are nothing more then 'reptile like', which is obsurd of course. What you have to realize is, creationism is an attempt at destroying science. In order for YEC to be true, almost every discipline in science would have to be rewritten.
Quote:
|
The way I read this, the authors seem to have had a personal agenda in mind when they embarked on their paper - an attempt to discredit creationism. (Besides, there are problems with their theory on the origin of feathers, but thats for another post!)
|
No offense, but you apparently haven't kept up with the creationist ploys to interject faith into science. Make no mistake-creationism, whether ID or YEC is not science, it's not even good Christianity (IMO).