21
   

WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 07:57 am
@DrewDad,
I can also mean a woman who has only had one man.

One who is faithful and chaste.

One couldn't praise chastity in the sense of never having had a man because no children would be born to fight to defend the Pope and the barbarians would then have swept across Europe and there would be no USA. Using chaste to mean that, and praising it, was a heresy which was exterminated long ago. Quite ruthlessly too.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 08:03 am
@farmerman,
Hey effemm- that was pretty good. I think you lot are all paler shades of ID.

Rank dishonesty has been the anti-IDer's game from the beginning. It is nice to be agreed with by someone who writes so well.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 05:02 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Are you up for Sir J.C. Bose's researches into plant sensibility being included in the school biology curriculum?


It is quite striking that the man who wishes to bring science into the classroom is so shy about this question. Maybe he has singled out Darwin for non-scientific reasons. It certainly looks like it.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 05:38 am
@spendius,
You seem obsessed with Bose, as if our failure to respond is some "institutional conspiracy" to silence you.

I dont know anything about Bose or his work. I looked it up and ran a cross on SCI to see if his work had been "cited" in subsequent reserach. There were a few pieces of work that focused on plant neurology and genetics of neural networks. Remember, science moves on so rapidly that something, while fascinating to you in your beer adled state, may have seen its daylight 50 years ago , and the relevant reearch may have passed him by several decades ago. Nothing is a constantin science. You , as a self proclaimed "scientist" , must certainly recognize that.

Anyway,Im more familiar with Dr ARman Bose and his great sound systems.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 05:42 am
@farmerman,
I am glad that you approved of Jerry Coynes review of Ken Millers book. I think that many evolution scientists will, from here on, be less accomodating with all the thesitic evolution types. Mostly because of exactly the cognative dissonance issue that Coyne presented.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 06:24 am
@farmerman,
I also recognise the possibility of it being hushed-up. I'm not paranoid enough to think it is to "silence me". It seems to me that if we are all descended from a common ancestor that plants might well experience pain.

A tree surgeon once used the word "panic" matter-of-factly to me about a willow tree's response to him pruning it. And I have seen a large tree vibrate (shudder) when a chain saw was applied to its base which I, at the time, thought was the physical resonance of the motor.

But that's by-the-by. Man has dominion.

The point, which you either don't get or are being obtuse about in your usual manner, is that if Bose's science has been hushed up to avoid its potential social consequences, which I am not saying is the case, I am speculating, then the refusal to consider the potential social consequences of evolution theory is demonstrated to be a partial and political, emotional even, reaction and nothing to do with the principle of teaching science in science classes. A wedge. A deliberate and revolutionary attack on Western values masterminded at a far higher level than you lot are operating on.

There are other aspects of biological science about which this consideration applies. The genesis of neuroses for example. The effects of human activity upon nature is another. Propaganda techniques and subliminal messaging. The focus on cure rather than prevention. Others too sensitive to mention.

How much longer can you ignore the psychosomatic realm and social consequences and maintain your integrity as a spokesperson for science?

Man does not live by bread alone.

You're blustering again effemm.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 09:38 am
@spendius,
Quote:
How much longer can you ignore the psychosomatic realm and social consequences and maintain your integrity as a spokesperson for science?
Im only a spokesperson for me. SCience can take care of itself. Your interest in the psychosomatic realm is, by my view, just a reason to stake out some obscure area of information and dwell on it for your own entertainment. I admit that Im ignorant and , further, disinterested in neural networks of plants and their connection to humans. Ive got enough on my plate.

WHy dont you start a thread on this subject if your paranoia will let up a bit? That way you can actually test your hypotheses on the other participants.

Ive got your number pretty good, you stay away from areas that others are generally better informed than you , just so that you can appear somewhat informed on the obscure. In the age of GOOGLE, Im bored with the obscure and the bedimmed. When you cannot stay on topic, you apparently suffer from ADHD
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 05:54 pm
@farmerman,
I'm interested in the psychosomatic effects of belief systems. It would be an argument for Creationism that it was more beneficial psychosomatically than atheism if it could be shown to be. From a health point of view I mean.

It seems on topic to me. If you just want to assert that Creationism will never win without any objections being allowed I can't see why the thread would be longer that one post.

Xenoche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 09:25 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
It would be an argument for Creationism that it was more beneficial psychosomatically than atheism if it could be shown to be. From a health point of view I mean.


That's a big 'If', to bad you could say the same about pretty much anything, sadly still proving nothing.

Awesome display of your very own brand of dumb, as usual.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 04:23 am
@Xenoche,
My "if" was my just being polite. I didn't use the word casually.

I think it has been shown. See Durkheim and many others.

I notice you remain wedded to the pointless, banal and self-reassuring assertion technique. I think it self-defeating and a cause of numerous negative outcomes.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 05:01 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Im only a spokesperson for me. SCience can take care of itself. Your interest in the psychosomatic realm is, by my view, just a reason to stake out some obscure area of information and dwell on it for your own entertainment. I admit that Im ignorant and , further, disinterested in neural networks of plants and their connection to humans. Ive got enough on my plate.

WHy dont you start a thread on this subject if your paranoia will let up a bit? That way you can actually test your hypotheses on the other participants.

Ive got your number pretty good, you stay away from areas that others are generally better informed than you , just so that you can appear somewhat informed on the obscure. In the age of GOOGLE, Im bored with the obscure and the bedimmed. When you cannot stay on topic, you apparently suffer from ADHD


If Science can take care of itself, as I have often said, then why don't you let it? You have been talking for years about Science being under threat.

Psychosmatic considerations are not an obscure area of information. You are just saying that, and other things there, to get out of a fix. If you are "disinterested", by which I presume you mean have on Ignore, the sensitivity of plants it may well be for subjective reasons. But it does show your capacity to pick and choose which biology to give the kids and that your choice is congruent with an agenda of your own. Science which doesn't fit your agenda is deemed "uninteresting" despite it being most interesting to many biologists and gardeners who I have no doubt you think are nuts.

I might guess that dietary advice to students is conditioned by the food industry lobby rather than scientific principles. Dr Barnard thought so. Your continued mantra about only science being taught in biology lessons is completely exploded.

Explain to me if you will why my posts are for my "own entertainment" and your's are not.

I cannot image anybody with a scientific mind being uninterested in plant sensitivity. If you have enough on your plate what are you doing on here making yourself look ridiculous.

Why am I paranoid. That's just one of your pejoritive buzzwords you toss out to try to win a point by an asserted insult. Paranoia is an unjustified fear. An irrational fear. A genuine fear is not paranoia. 85% of Americans have a fear of an atheist agenda. To the top of all your governments. They fear the consequences of an atheist agenda which I don't think in the least irrational.

I'm not staying on the topic as you define it. Forget it. It is you who have attention deficit on anything it suits you to have.

What does "never win" mean?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 04:53 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Quote of the week: Jerry Coyne on the incompatibility of science and religion April 4, 2009

This disharmony is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence"the existence of religious scientists"is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith. Now Darwin Year is upon us, and we can expect more books like those by Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson. Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.

I think he's right. Ultimately, science is corrosive to religion.

The only way you can reconcile them is to dilute their functional meanings to the point where they merge in the wilderness of perceptual philosophy, somewhere between "god works in mysterious ways" and "we just don't know yet".
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 05:05 pm
@rosborne979,
I don't actually think that religion and science are incompatible. The Unitarians certainly have no problem with this, and the Catholic Church fully accepts the sound scientific basis of evolution.

The problem lies with the vociferous advocates of biblical inerrancy. For those who cannot retreat one line from the contention that the bible is divinely-inspired, inerrant revealed truth, science is a huge threat. F0r people who cannot accept any part of scripture as metaphor, but must insist upon its absolute, literal truth, science is anathema.

It is only those who so insist who are involved in a mental exercise incompatible with science. This is revealed most poignantly in their insistence in linking cosmic origins with evolution. They do not or will not understand that a theory of evolution does not "care" how the cosmos came into being, and that it is only concerned with the process by which simple life forms become complex life forms. Recall the fanatical insistence upon cosmic origins displayed by the member "real life." He and those who think like him see the strongest argument against evolution in particular and science in general in calling into question theories of cosmic origins--recognizing at the same time that it is the most threatening idea to those devoted to scripturally revealed truth.

It is entirely possible for someone to accept a theory of evolution, while continuing to believe in a deity as first cause, as prime mover, with evolution the process by which said deity accomplishes the articulation and ramification of life. It is, specifically, the hard-line religious fundamentalist who is most threatened by a theory of evolution, and who fights most vociferously against it.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 05:31 pm
@Setanta,
Wouldn't it be wonderful if it was as simple as that.

We could all talk about the ball game, ladies' garments and crankshaft grinding then. Oh what joy.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 06:32 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
the Catholic Church fully accepts the sound scientific basis of evolution.
What Coyne is saying is that Ken Millers new book is a "copout" because Miller, being a Biologist , who also happens to be a devout Catholic, describes perfectly the concept of cognative dissonace. "He asks for all the data to explain the cascade of enzymes in blood clotting, but in the next moment, fully accepts the "virgin Birth".

I beleive that Coyne is having some fun at his colleagues expense. COyne is our version of Dawkins, and one whose position I personally admire because I dont even want to consider the "compatability" issue for too long. It always gives me a headache. Ive said many times, like you, that there is no apparent incompatability.(But, behind closed doors, I do make fun of all the religious pomp and circumstance). Jews are the only ones who, IMM , are honest about everything. They know its bullshit but its their bullshit.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 08:53 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I don't actually think that religion and science are incompatible. The Unitarians certainly have no problem with this, and the Catholic Church fully accepts the sound scientific basis of evolution.

The problem lies with the vociferous advocates of biblical inerrancy. For those who cannot retreat one line from the contention that the bible is divinely-inspired, inerrant revealed truth, science is a huge threat. F0r people who cannot accept any part of scripture as metaphor, but must insist upon its absolute, literal truth, science is anathema.

It is only those who so insist who are involved in a mental exercise incompatible with science. This is revealed most poignantly in their insistence in linking cosmic origins with evolution. They do not or will not understand that a theory of evolution does not "care" how the cosmos came into being, and that it is only concerned with the process by which simple life forms become complex life forms. Recall the fanatical insistence upon cosmic origins displayed by the member "real life." He and those who think like him see the strongest argument against evolution in particular and science in general in calling into question theories of cosmic origins--recognizing at the same time that it is the most threatening idea to those devoted to scripturally revealed truth.

It is entirely possible for someone to accept a theory of evolution, while continuing to believe in a deity as first cause, as prime mover, with evolution the process by which said deity accomplishes the articulation and ramification of life. It is, specifically, the hard-line religious fundamentalist who is most threatened by a theory of evolution, and who fights most vociferously against it.


So, scientifically speaking, what is the "substance" of the bread and wine that is turned into the body and blood of Christ, through the power of the transubstantiation? I will not tell any Unitarians that their faith was compared to Catholicism regarding scientific acceptance. You do know that Presbyterians, for example, tell all that their Eucharist is just symbolic. That I would believe is not because they believe only a Catholic priest has the power of the transubstantiation, but because nothing is changed in the "substance" of the bread and wine. And, in my opinion, the Catholic Eurcharist falls under the main heading of sympathetic magic. I understand that you might not like criticism of this nature, since I am pointing out that a religion is either enlightened in all arenas, not just some, if it is to be considered accepting of science, in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 04:26 am
You're entitled to your opinion, Foofie, and Dog knows you have heaps of uniformed and simple-minded opinions, you've aired them by the hundreds here. I was simply pointing out that there are many people, easily millions, and probably tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of people who are religiously devout and who are content to accept the idea of god as a prime mover and that this belief is not incompatible with accepting science as a reasonable and useful way to investigate the universe which they believe was created by a deity.

Your insistence on doctrinal minutiae is unsurprising--you have always struck me as a "can't see the forest for the trees" kind of guy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 04:29 am
@farmerman,
As i said in my response to New York's version of mush mouth here, the details of doctrine are not at all relevant to the beliefs of those who find science and religion compatible. I only have a problem with the fanatic, whatever their religious obsession, and i have the same problem with the atheist fanatic who raises science to the level of a religious doctrine, and who is usually about as well informed about science and its methods as the religious loony is about the provenance of their holy scripture.

But people poking fun at one another is always entertaining, so long as it doesn't get out of hand, and someone ends up having their eye put out.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 05:41 am
Heck; some of my best friends are religious. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2009 06:42 am
Bill Nye was booed as being anti religious because the moon does not generate its own light, Appropiately it happened in a place called Waco.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4112-Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m4d22-Just-shoot-me

Quote:
Next ArticleSkepticism Examiner Just shoot me...
April 22, 8:54 PM ยท 13 comments
ShareThis Feed

Good thing he didn't tell them about the Earth around the Sun thing.Bill Nye "The Science Guy" was booed in Waco, Texas for suggesting the Moon did not generate its own light, but reflected light from the sun.

Trouble started when the children's entertainer brought up Genesis 1:16, which reads: "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars," and pointed out that the lesser light was actually a reflector.

At this point, several people in the audience stormed out, including woman with three small children who shouted, "We believe in God!" and left.

Nye was taking part in McLennan Community College's Distinguished Lecture Series, giving talks on global warming, Mars exploration, and energy consumption, but it was the moon thing that got them.

According to Morgan Matthew, "This story originally appeared in the Waco Tribune, but the newspaper has mysteriously pulled its story from the online version, presumably to avoid further embarrassment."

This is the link: http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/04/06/04062006wacbillnye.html



(Update: Here is what someone posted, claiming it's the original text of th article. The post is from 2009, but the story from 2006? First I'd heard of it.)

Here's the text:

"The Science Guy is entertaining and provocative at MCC lecture

Thursday, April 06, 2006

By Tim Woods

Waco Tribune-Herald staff writer

Audience members who expected to see Bill Nye "The Science Guy" conduct
experiments and wow their children received quite a surprise Wednesday when Nye
spoke at McLennan Community College.

Nye instead addressed such topics as Mars exploration, global warming and
energy consumption, particularly oil and gas. He even ruffled a few religious
feathers along the way.

The scientist with a background in stand-up and sketch comedy kept spectators
interested, entertained and at ease with his funny, sometimes hilarious,
delivery.

Speaking as part of MCC's Distinguished Lecturer Series, Nye spoke to two
audiences, one at 1:30 p.m. and the second at 7 p.m., of about 600 each. He
said the first audience, though littered with young children listening to some
rather adult scientific topics, "very supportive."

The second group also was rapt from the beginning, greeting the scientist with
a raucous standing ovation upon his introduction.

"You haven't heard the presentation yet!" Nye told them.

Opening with a discussion of Mars and his hopes for further discovery on the
neighboring planet, Nye encouraged the audience to take interest in discovery
and "change the world," a mantra he repeated throughout.

Nye indicated that the presence of water in Mars' atmosphere - evidenced by the
planet's ability to form frost - leads him to believe that there is a strong
possibility that the planet once supported life.

The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized
literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: "God
made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser
light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

He pointed out that the sun, the "greater light," is but one of countless stars
and that the "lesser light" is the moon, which really is not a light at all,
rather a reflector of light.

A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by
what some perceived as irreverence.

"We believe in a God!" exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three
young children.

Nye also was critical of what he said was governmental agencies' lack of
action, even lack of understanding, in protecting the Earth from global warming
and wasted resources.

Nye's educational science show won 28 Emmy awards during its television run
from 1992-98.

It seemed most in attendance were pleased to hear Nye speak, and some were even
awed by the presence of a childhood icon.

"How cool is that, to be face to face with the man, Bill Nye?" said Jared
McClure, who worked sound and video for the event. "And he's funny, too."



In this case I agree with Gov Perry. Certain Texas individuals should succeed. It could only help the rest of the US.

Rap
 

Related Topics

Creationism and public schools - Question by plainoldme
Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Fighting to end Creationism - Discussion by rosborne979
Evolution VS. Creationism - Discussion by Palatidd
Creator - Question by Ali phil
A question about intelligent design - Discussion by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 04:59:30