Cedarford disputes the contentions of his fellow sciencists:
It is fitting when VD outed himself as a scientist(actually, more an engineer or technician since VD has never done scientific research or published a single science paper)
Oh, so today we’re deciding that engineers aren’t scientists, now that it doesn’t suit the scientific faithful to describe a particular individual as a scientist? Because only two weeks ago, people were swearing up and down that the guys who invented the silicon chip were scientists because they were engineers.
Do make up your collective mind, science fans.
I have certainly postulated a hypothesis, performed experiments and observed them.. It’s true, I have never published a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal, but then, neither did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton or Darwin. I suppose they must not be scientists either, then. Or is what makes a scientist different today than 300 years ago, is the problem that science is as mutable in the secularist mind as morality?
You see, Cedarford and others find themselves in a bit of an uncomfortable dilemma. Either science is not responsible for the great majority of the scientific goodness that its worshippers wish to claim for it, or I am a scientist, the son of a scientist, and my dictates must be given great weight on the basis of my membership in the Priesthood of Progressive Man.