MSNBC: US Becoming Hostile to Science?

[Cyclotron]

Do you know any IDers or Creationists in your department?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Do you know any IDers or Creationists in your department?

Nope.

[Atahualpa]

[Q=Sava´s letter to the editor]As a Christian, I am puzzled that so many are intimidated by claims that “the scientific method” concludes that evolution theory is based on empirical facts and creation theory is based on religion — not empirical evidence. To say that belief in an intelligent, beneficent designer is not based on empirical evidence makes a mockery of millions of people throughout the ages who have accepted[/Q]

A christian speaking of god as a "designer".. pathetic... next Karl Lagerfeld will claim he's God


Anyway the article is a bit dangerous and I don't agree that much with it. I'll try to point out:

Other polls show that only around a third of American adults accept the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, even though the concept is virtually uncontested by scientists worldwide.

We have to keep in mind, that it's just a theory and not something that is good when everyone believes in it. The wording is dangerous in that science may easily be seen as dogma itself.
We're not the ones who think to hold the truth.

The important thing ONLY is to have heard of the theories. You need not believe in them to be "good". You must have heard of them and know them. What you believe is totally up to you. Ignorance is the only thing that is truly evil.

[Deity Dude]

Don't try and tell them that you DON'T believe in ID or creationism but have heard credible debates by qualified scientists about portions of evolution that seem to be flawed.

If you do that you are a Creationist who believes in ID and most likely a religous whacko. Even if you are an Agnostic.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Don't try and tell them that you DON'T believe in ID or creationism but have heard credible debates by qualified scientists about portions of evolution that seem to be flawed.

If you do that you are a Creationist who believes in ID and most likely a religous whacko. Even if you are an Agnostic.

Don't start. I PWNED your nihilistic-type pedantic scepticism in the other thread.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Odin


Don't start. I PWNED your nihilistic-type pedantic scepticism in the other thread.

Hardly, I just got tired of arguing with someone who wouldn't listen to a word I said. We went back and forth in 3 or 4 posts wher I said I didn't believe in ID or Creationism, then went on to discuss the issue. Your response was to say that ID and creationism weren't science.

Then I would agree and say I didn't believe in ID or creationism, and try and discuss the issue. Again you would ignore what I said and call me an ID'er or Creationist. It was reminiscentof arguing with my son when he was about 2.

If you will look at my last post in that thread, I said I would see u in another thread if u were ready to discuss th issue instead of putting words in my mouth.

Well, are you? Or are you just gonna keep telling me Creationism isn't science when I already totally agree with that.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Don't try and tell them that you DON'T believe in ID or creationism but have heard credible debates by qualified scientists about portions of evolution that seem to be flawed.

The debates on specific mechanisms are highly technical and most people don't understand.

Have you read Denton's second book by any chance?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Hardly, I just got tired of arguing with someone who wouldn't listen to a word I said. We went back and forth in 3 or 4 posts wher I said I didn't believe in ID or Creationism, then went on to discuss the issue. Your response was to say that ID and creationism weren't science.

Then I would agree and say I didn't believe in ID or creationism, and try and discuss the issue. Again you would ignore what I said and call me an ID'er or Creationist. It was reminiscentof arguing with my son when he was about 2.

If you will look at my last post in that thread, I said I would see u in another thread if u were ready to discuss th issue instead of putting words in my mouth.

Well, are you? Or are you just gonna keep telling me Creationism isn't science when I already totally agree with that.

Well, what are those objections? post some.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Then I would agree and say I didn't believe in ID or creationism, and try and discuss the issue.

Yes, you asserted that.

You brought up many of the same old arguments that Creationists use against evolution, all of them refuted numerous times over. For example, you claimed that gaps in the fossil record is a valid criticism of evolution.

You also quoted from Creationist press releases to support your own view.

That's interesting behaviour for some person who proclaimed to be an evolutionist.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin

So? US Fundimentalism is a protestant phenomenon. Catholics don't interpret the Bible literally.

Catholics don't interperet the bible at all.

[Mr. Harley]

I live in the Bible Belt, in the town that is home to the Southern Baptist Seminary and one of the first huge mega-churches, Southeast Christian, that the BBC even did a report on. I WORK with both creationists and ID's.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Oh, I know those people. We just got a new organist at our church who is gay, and one couple left the church because they thought it was terrible that the pastor accepted this. Yes, people who don't like gays, that I have met - even in San Francisco. But Creationists? Never in the flesh.

Maybe they didn't like the gay guy because ever time they went to church there he was, at his organ again.

[Cyclotron]

Actually, they thought that when the pastor introduced him and his partner, she (the pastor) was flaunting his gayosity. Gayness. Gayitude - whatever. I saw them at a restaurant a few months back and they sounded absolutely scandalized that she seemed so accepting of gays.

I think it's actually pretty funny - he wears these bright pastel shirts all the time, but is very serious and engrossed in the music - our usual church custom is to get up and leave during the postlude, and apparently he thought that such behavior was disrespectful of his music and now we all have to sit through the postlude. Not that I mind; he's a brilliant organist.

And I don't mean that in the Sikander way.

[Patroklos]

may easily be seen as dogma itself.

An definite problem.

[Atahualpa]

[Q=Patroklos]An definite problem.[/Q]

Yeah but that problem stems from the people itself as they're not satisfied with the theories science provides them with. They want definite answers like: THAT'S WHAT IT'S LIKE!
Nobody is satisfied with the uncertain answers from scientists. The dilemma is clear, we'll never know and we either strive to knowledge our whole life or be ignorant and accept something which we hold for truth for the rest of the live. I cannot agree that the latter (religious) behavior is the right/moral/good one though.

IMO Religion should leave the field of science. Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive and I think should not cover the same topics. Religion should focus on ethics and morality, provide rules for living together (that are more common than the law) and try to define what according to them is good and bad. They'll always lose when they try to be more clever than scientists, since scientific views change more often than that of religion and religion is much less flexible than science.
But since so many people get the kick out of being ruled and watched over by some greater authority, I don't see that happen. I am not keen on that. The concept of god is stupid and from the middle ages. Not suprisingly god is called the lord.