Well, someone has to do it.
|I guess it might as well be me.|
Tara points to this list comparing scientists to religion. Cute but nonsense.
On the other hand, as I read more and more evolution denial and HIV/AIDS denial threads I have greater and greater difficulty telling the two apart. Here’s a partial list of equivalancies I’ve noticed:
Denial - Denial
Internet - Church
Padian Study – Cambrian Explosion
Peter Duesberg – Johnathan Wells
Harvey Bialy - William Dembski
Dean Esmay – Dave Scott
Celia Farber – Michael Behe
Hank Barnes – Salvador Cordova
Robert Gallo – Earnst Haeckel
Complete disregard for Molecular evidence –Complete disregard for Molecular evidence
AIDS diagnosis includes HIV infection – “Survival of the fittest” is a tautology
Poppers/recreational drugs – Intelligent Designer
Africa – High Schools
Patients – Penitents
HIV tests innaccurate - There's no such thing as a beneficial mutation
Show me the HIV/AIDS vaccine - Show me a cat turning into dog in the lab
"Absolutely NO evidence HIV causes AIDS!"- "Absolutely NO evidence of macroevolution!"
Can anyone point out some criterion to distinguish one type of denialist from the other?
ps: If you can think of any other similarities feel free to add them in comments!
Dean Esmay provides two suggestions for the list.
Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis should pair nicely with Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley
***Walter Gilbert has accepted the evidence, provided by anti-retrovirals controlling AIDS symptoms, that HIV is indeed the cause of AIDS. See comments below.***
These are welcome additions to the list.
Anyone coming over from Deansworld be sure to check out these answers to the six questions Bialy posted there some time ago.
I don't want you going away thinking we haven't noticed the most glaring similarity between HIV "skeptics" and evolution deniers, that they're both wrong.
The only blog inspired by a Bumper Sticker.