I made a 'no arguing about evolution on Twitter' rule a long time ago & I'm sticking to it. There's just so much information available. https://twitter.com/DubuissonPaul/status/873902606711529472 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
And yet, it's practically inconsequential in the big picture. Isaac Newton believed in "intelligent design" - and to what ill effect?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rhodeislander
Fortunately the picture is bigger than Newton or science, medicine & psychology would be much poorer.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Agree on some level, but people can deny evolution and still be great doctors and scientists. Religion and science not mutually exclusive.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rhodeislander
Religion & science can co-exist but are antithetical. I cld be a great historian and believe in pixies. Doesn't mean history supports pixies
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I'm not sure I'd go that far. Religion has spurred the interest in inquiry in some of history's greatest scientists. Agree that faith != sci
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rhodeislander
I've had this conversation so often, I made this to demonstrate it.pic.twitter.com/1SN5nwhPiQ
2 replies 3 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Yup. My larger point is that disbelief in creationism is not a serious obstacle for many branches of science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't think I was claiming it was tho. On AIG, most of the scientists are chemists.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.