Shirakawasuna, you missed some of the play-by-play here. BD switched from Hawking to Richard Dawkins, who is a much more attractive target for the bible-thumpers. He has a habit of telling the idiotic wankers that they are all idiotic wankers.
BD wants to associate scientists and atheists in the minds of the unwary reader. He said that FM was peddling junk, and immediately introduced the subject of Richard Dawkins, one assumes as "proof" that scientists do not separate science from their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Of course, no one had mentioned Dawkins previous to that foray on BD's part, but that hardly matters to him, he's got propaganda to disseminate.
However, i wrote "one assumes" in my response to his idiocy, and in this post, because, as usual, BD doesn't make clear what he means, or claims to mean.
FM wrote:A scientists religious beleifs (or lack of ), has no bearing upon their work .
BD claimed he was "peddling junk" when he wrote that, and trotted out Dawkins as an example.
However, logic never was BD's strong suit. To make his case that Dawkins' religious beliefs or lack thereof had any bearing upon his work as a scientist, he would have to show that Dawkins work were flawed as a result of prejudice, or that he only pursued his work because of his religious belief or lack thereof.
To BD, my response was a strawman, because the logical inference of what he had written never occured to him, even after he had writtn it.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace