wande quoted-
Quote:with the help of scientists who organized to defeat creationist candidates.
If scientists start politicking are they still scientists at the time they are engaged in such an activity. I would say they cannot be because they are taking a subjective stance based on a view that their position will be beneficial to the voters as a whole without presenting any evidence that that is so. They have become partisan in a way which betrays the scientific viewpoint which is neutral on such matters. Whatever their motive it is not scientific because they only have assertions to work on.
Quote:"We are in a nationwide struggle for the integrity of science education," Professor Miller said, "and any situation that provides an opportunity for the opponents of science education to advance their agenda is a matter of concern."
And that is not the case. The argument is not about all science. It is about a small and relatively minor aspect of science which is of some importance in the political, economic and social aspects of national life. Even Creationists are not opposed to science education in general and iders most certainly are not as my previous post was intended to make clear.
c.i. wrote-using similar smear tactics-
Quote:Strange observation from somebody who spends most of his out of home experience at the local pub.
I go to the pub everynight at 10.30 pm for about an hour and a half and 3 pints of health giving 3.8% beer and to socialise with my neighbours as do millions of others including many scientists some of whose number can drink me under the table.
Your continual harping on about that exposes a puritan streak in your make up c.i. You seem to spend your "out of home" time in admiring foreign places and when you get back you start banging on about how others spend their "out of home" time as if your choice is somehow superior which I don't think is the case. What I spend in the pub is taxed at 90% plus and thus goes to help fund education, including science education, whereas what you spend in other countries goes to help their educational choices and possibly some anti-American activities as well. And I walk to the pub whereas you make an unholy din in the vicinity of airports and an enormous oil digestion fart in your wake and put chemicals into the atmosphere of unknown consequences.
And I have a job. I would shut up about the pub, and me, if I was you and try to offer your thoughts on the Empedocles post and then I might take you seriously.
The post you refer to simply tried to make the point that the dehumanized human being is evil and that there's no need to go into the gruesome details of one particular case unless dwelling on the details is the purpose of the exercise. It wasn't a difficult point to grasp. And it wasn't "strange". It is well known.
Doesn't the defence of those involved in atrocities in Abu Ghraib rightly bring in the dehumanizing aspects of their circumstances as mitigation for their actions?
