|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists control science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
What definition of 'atheist' are you using? Given, this statement, I think his definition of atheist is a bit moot.
There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science. Atheists, for the purpose of this rant, means everybody who accepts evolution as the explanation for biodiversity on this planet. I expect that I'll remain in lurk mode for this thread. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
A legitimate question - my definition of atheist in this case is anyone with a political opposition I see a couple of problems with your definition. First it would only apply to those relatively few atheists who are politically active in opposition to what you label as traditional religious practice. I suspect that your definition will cause you some proof problems in making your case. Very few members of NAS are on record as opposing politically traditional religious practice as you define it. But your definition would also include any number of people whose religions traditions are non-Judeo/Christian, and insist that the constitution be enforced as atheists for no good reason that I can gather. I hope Admin will reconsider his decision to disallow your definition. I'd love to watch you try to defend what appears to be an untenable position. But it probably would be prudent to stick with a definition that you have some hope of defending.
and why so many scientists are Democrats. I don't know what happened when you went to college, but I picked my field of study based on what I happened to enjoy and be fairly good at. Unless you are prepared to point to a bunch of republicans who have been kicked out of graduate programs, your arguments regarding the political identity of scientists is unlikely to lead to anything except a peek into your head. I'm looking forward to reading your explanations for this phenomenon.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I have about 6 messages to respond to tonight - I'd appreciate no cut-in's until I'm done. Only another hour or two By my count, you posted five messages before anyone else posted, and then a couple more after a single interruption. Your objection, given that nobody here owes you anything seems pointless.
From here on, I won't respond to anymore individual messages. A completely appropriate action to take, in my view. I was hoping though that you would get around to making the case that NAS is dominated or controlled by political and militant atheists. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Anyway, we've already seen marc9000's definition of "atheist"; it is basically someone who fails to agree with marc9000 about religion and politics. That pretty much makes this entire thread a waste of time. I disagree that the thread is a waste of time. We are learning quite a bit about how marc9000 views things and I find his view point quite interesting. In the long run perhaps threads like this save time.
I genuinely have no idea why marc9000 would think that this supports his case. I don't think creationists are actually lying when they quote mine. Marc9000 believes he has caught the author in an admissions of his true feelings. 9000's position is irrational, and you don't have to be an atheist to appreciate that. He won't be satisfied until science kowtow's to the opinions of people he admits are a small minority. Why in the world Moose thought this nonsense was Post of the Month material is a complete mystery to me.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
NoNukes writes: In the long run perhaps threads like this save time. GM writes: I doubt it. Tangle was the first to point it out; marc9000's title contains three words and he has chosen idiosyncratic definitions for all of them. That is not an approach that's likely to help clarify anything. It may appeal to marc9000 as a way to rationalise the cognitive dissonance arising from his rich fantasy life, but as actual communication, it's valueless. Exactly. And some people will be persuaded not to make futile attempts to communicate/debate with him, saving them time. As you indicated, interesting "in a clinical sense..."
Like I say, perhaps he's not deliberately lying, but certainly he is guilty of intellectual dishonesty. Maybe. I'll admit to a reluctance to accuse someone of dishonesty until I've completely ruled out the possibility of ineptness. I think marc9000 believes what he presented as being helpful to his argument. The problem is that it would not be all that helpful even if it were accurate. Of course there are some militant atheists around. I doubt that 9 Grand can point to any on the NAS without doing even more equivocating.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But different people have different definitions of what a pseudoscientist is. Some think Michael Shermer is a pseudoscientist. A pseudo scientist is not someone without scientific credentials who engages in science. A pseudo scientist is someone who does bad science. Whatever Michael Shermer's credentials are, you are complaining about the fact that he writes for the Scientific American, which is a popular science magazine and not a scientific journal.
But since the NAS is in control, it defines someone like Michael Behe as a pseudoscientist. Michael Behe's work in ID is properly considered psuedo science. It would not matter if the work were being done by Einstein or Newton. The issue is not about Dr. Behe's credentials at all. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
And in the end, it is reality that controls science despite what marc9000 might wish. Reality controls the results of scientific inquiry, but there is certainly politics and ideology involved in determining what research gets public funding. Stem cell research is an classic example of a line of research that is a political football.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Sure, I don't blame a conspiracy of atheists and "lefties" for the lack of political diversity in science, but, I also don't think atheists and "lefties" are perfectly innocent in this, either. So what role would you assign to atheist and lefties for chasing conservatives out of science so that only 6% of the scientists identify themselves as Republican? Are classrooms so hostile to conservatives that they find the only bastions of conservatism on campus? Do conservatives find the environment at work so hostile as to send them back to school for an MBA credential?
I think even the biology department at BYU, where faculty have to be Mormons, was (slightly) left-leaning (though politics was kind of a taboo subject there). So what could possibly explain the left leaning of the biology department, given the taboo on politics? Surely not the campus environment. I'm quite skeptical that any of those excuses contribute significantly to the dearth of conservatives in the sciences. If you have even anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise, let's hear it. I tend to think dwise1's tongue in cheek comment is at least partly on the mark and partially explains the lack of diversity among science. While a scientist might well identify and hold conservative values and even vote for Republican candidates, large parts of the Republican platform are anti-science, and I just cannot see how very many scientists would identify with such a platform. For example, the number of science who reject man-made climate change must surely be a tiny number.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The only Mormons that typically go into science are the ones that are more detached socially from the main crowd in the first place. And you think that, rather than the subject matter of biology, which essentially requires accepting evolution, is responsible for directing Mormons away from biology?
Since Coyote claims to have experienced this, I didn't note Coyote making such a claim. He discusses some rudeness at conferences, but not much else.
I do have a couple of anecdotes, though. First, I'm pretty sure we can attribute the dearth of conservatives on EvC to the way they were treated by atheists and "lefties" while here. I'll note that ridicule of creationists is done by even the few right leaning scientific people here. Even Buzsaw has been known to ridicule YECs. Do you really want to equate creationism with conservatism?
Whether or not that's a bad thing, I'll let you decide on your own, but I think we can all agree that they didn't leave because they were convinced that they were wrong. No. Many of them left because the participants as a whole believed they were wrong and because their arguments had no traction here.
Is there evidence for this position? I would be very interested in seeing it. Evidence for what exactly? Is there a question about the percentage of scientists who accept human-driven climate change, or are you looking for something else? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Well, if they were simply those things or just that, then I suppose you're right. But the existence of a creator doesn't necessitate those things. I agree. To use another poster's example, proof that Jesus supernaturally changed water into wine via a miracle, does not mean that science details about fermentation are suddenly wrong.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That could actually be a very interesting discussion if Marc would just stop distracting attention with his stilted definitions. I think a bit more would be required of Marc before this discussion would be interesting. An acceptable definition of atheist would not help the discussion significantly. Marc's real objections are 1) that nobody is putting the brakes on specific lines of scientific inquiry that Marc finds objectionable, and 2) that ID isn't getting a fair shake. Anybody who allows those things is, according to what Marc has posted in this thread, either an atheist or a lousy, stinking, collaborator. Tiding up the definition of atheist just determines how many people are in each of those two buckets. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You are free to hold whatever opinion you want, but I used the terms creator and designer for specific reasons, that the terms imply direct control. Actually those terms (creator and designer) do not imply direct control, at least not direct control of the kind that interferes with scientific inquiry. For example, a creator might be the entity Deist accept that set things into motion and no longer interferes. That creator could have done all of his designing via "front loading" with the end result being a universe according to the creator's intention accomplished without the interference Creationists insist on. Or viewed another way, for you to be correct would imply that because the universe is currently in a state where biology and physics work there can be no creator for our universe. But the truth is that science does not address such a question. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
not the Creator that is marketed by either the Creationists or ID Salesmen. It seems to match the kind of intelligent designer that Genomicus argues for.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
marc9G writes: What bothers me is that it’s no longer controlled by people who know what its limits should be. Dr. A writes: You mean like Pope Urban VIII did? What a bone-chilling thought. At one time scientists did avoid crossing religion because they did not want to end up dead. Copernicus arranged to have his description of the heliocentric model published after his death. Giordano Bruno was burned to death in 1600. To this very day, some Catholics still defend Galileo's treatment under Pope Urban VIII.[1] [1]The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers. This page creeps me out every time I read it.
quote: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024