If you think anyone in this thread is being inappropriately angry then you should bring it to the attention of moderators by posting to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread. It's not usually a good idea to appoint yourself moderator.
I used the term mainstream science, and science, and in no way referred to this thread in particular.
The idea that someone who becomes angry is wrong is, to understate the case, a bit of a stretch.
And I didn’t say or imply that in any way. Anger inhibits rational discussion — that is my point, and I suspect, a large part of the thread starters point.
Unethical and/or immoral behavior (or in the case of the Aldrin video, also badgering behavior) does tend to draw an anger response from people. This is due to repugnance at dishonesty and immorality and has nothing to do with any scientific opinions someone might hold.
Getting back to this thread, repugnance at dishonesty can go both ways. From message 6, we have this;
jar writes:
Until and unless those who are trying to market the con job absurdity called "Intelligent Design" actually present first the designer critter for examination and testing and second, the method/model used by that critter, Intelligent Design should be simply relegated to the same wastebasket
It’s repugnant to ID proponents that ID has to present this to become science, while evolution doesn’t have to present anything concerning the origins of life. Yet it’s obvious that a far higher percentage of ID proponents are capable of discussing it without vitriol, than are evolution proponents. A look at dozens of threads on these, as well as other scientific discussion forums, are proof of it.
Percy writes:
But none of this is the topic of the thread.
Exactly right — YOU are off topic, I am not.
If you have any factual or evidential positions concerning the thread's topic that you'd like to argue, you should focus on those.
I'll CONTINUE to do that, but I won't spend much time, as it's probably suspension time for me. This was in the opening post;
jchardy writes:
If all scientists and educated faithful can come to an understanding that each deserve to believe what they individually want to believe, rejecting nothing, -- including either’s concepts of possibility or probability; and in that process reject dogma,-- the vitriol will cease and a conversation can commence.
Come to an understanding, the anger that begins in the highest realms of the scientific community trickles down through education, websites like ‘talkorigins’ and ends up in just about any type of scientific discussion media, is a large reason that vitriol abounds in questions and challenges to the established paradigm in biology, a paradigm that is a long way from having all the answers.