November 18, 2008

Oh REALLY?

"But beyond the biofuel implications, Strobel said that because the fungus can manufacture what we would normally think of as components of crude oil, it casts some doubt on the idea that crude oil is a fossil fuel.

"It may be the case that organisms like this produced some — maybe not all — but some of the world's crude," Strobel said."

But if you suggested that exact thing and were perhaps a creation scientist, or a Christian, or even just a conservative/libertarian, you were supposed to be an anti-scientific moron.

Gee, I *thought* that most scientific theory wasn't set in stone and that there are, in fact, competing theories with regard to things like allegedly "non-renewable" resources (based on, you know, actual evidence) but being shouted down so long by the enlightened elite just made me want to stop talking about it. Go figure.

3 comments:

Eema-le said...

This is really going to confuse Nancy Pelosi.

Eema-le said...

It's really annoying that scientists who don't go along with what is considered "common knowledge" are immediately labeled quacks and ostracized and sometimes even threatened. It's amazing how many scientists who don't believe that global warming is man-made etc. have to fear for their jobs and lives. Then we have the Duesberg hypothesis. I thought that science was about gaining knowledge. As much knowledge as we can. Not about pushing an agenda.

AnnieMcPhee said...

You'd think so. There is more than one branch of science where dogmatism has usurped open inquiry; that's one. And don't forget, in the 70s we were warned incessantly (in addition to the alien invasion and the Bermuda Triangle) that there was an imminent and catastrophic ice age coming. The whole thing died down for a while while "homelessness" became the rage, but then after about 10 years all of a sudden we had "global warming." Now it's "climate change" - I must not be the only one to remember the promised ice age lol.