« Qi is a Human Construct | Main | Christians Justify Torture »

April 29, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Seems to me that ID proponents spend more time defending God and creationism than they do in developing their so-called science. You'd think they would want to keep religion at a distance to minimize the controversy, yet I see them embracing it every day. My guess is they can't afford to alienate their base with the droll, tedium of science.

In his ruling on the Dover (PA) case, , Judge Jones (a George W. Bush appointee, no less) stated: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.” (Judge Rules Against “Intelligent Design,” MSNBC, 12/20/05)

I have a short post (2/12/2009 - Darwin's 200th birthday) about this case on my blog at: https://tirelesswing.blogspot.com/2009/02/christians-behaving-badly-3.html

Is she really using the fact that creationists and ID proponents disagree on many points as evidence that they are not related, and don't have shared origins? So the Protestant churches and the Catholic church aren't related either?

So the Protestant churches and the Catholic church aren't related either?

Of course they're not! Tha Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon! Haven't you read any Chick at all?

Has Melanie Philips ever been right about anything? Seriously, if she claimed that the sky is blue and grass is green, I'd have to double-check to be sure.

Quoting the last little bit of the dribble at the top:

"...If they want it to be science they need to do some science. Then they need to write it up and present it for publication in a science journal. Then have it peer reviewed, and stuff like that. But that’s too hard. Instead they just want to whine about how mean scientists are for calling them creationists..."

So this religion of "Science" as you call it, with your pious little "Science Priests" in their little white lab coats (men of the white cloth?), they sure know the truth, don't they?! It's in their Holey Scriptures, the Journals of Science! Where's the empirical evidence? There is none. But who dares blaspheme against the Holey Church of Science!?.

So how about YOU hang with your little religious sect and stop bashing people that have a different faith than you do? Interesting thought, eh?

Your intense hatred for this lady is pretty disturbing. I don't think I've seen a stronger example of bias, intolerance and hypocrisy in years.

Have a nice day!

To “Jimmy_Blu”

Two quick points Jimmy:

1) Don’t post here pretending to be someone else. Perhaps you think you’re being clever by calling yourself “Jimmy_Blu” when the previous poster is “Jimmy Blue”. I don’t.

2) We’ve all heard drivel like “religion of "Science"”, "Science Priests" etc before. Calling science a religion doesn’t make it one. Grow up. Get some new arguments.

Your intense hatred for this lady is pretty disturbing. I don't think I've seen a stronger example of bias, intolerance and hypocrisy in years.

Yes I’m biased against stupidity and against things which are obviously factually incorrect. I’m afraid you haven’t demonstrated hypocrisy though. Except in yourself.

So this religion of "Science" as you call it
No, you call it a "religion". And you're a dumbass for doing so. Next.

with your pious little "Science Priests" in their little white lab coats (men of the white cloth?)
...have you ever met a scientist? Is all your knowledge of science based on TV?

they sure know the truth, don't they?!
Science doesn't work on 100% truths, no; and no, scientists don't know everything. But scientists actually provide evidence for their hypotheses (if such evidence exists). But the ID crowd doesn't do that and, strangely, neither do you.

It's in their Holey Scriptures
You know, you'd think someone decrying science in favor of creationism could at least spell "holy" correctly.

the Journals of Science!
Scientific journals aren't "holy scriptures", you imbecile. Holy scriptures are made-up nonsense that's declared to be "revealed truth", which people then agree to believe to be true no matter how much reality contradicts it.

Articles in science journals, on the other hand, provide evidence for their assertions (remember evidence?), explain how they come to their conclusions, etc. And these results are not declared inviolable truth--other scientists will try to replicate these results and confirm or invalidate them. Exceptionally different from religion.

Where's the empirical evidence? There is none.
Say what? Evidence is presented in hundreds of thousands of journal articles over the ages, and you pretend that it doesn't exist?

Now let's ask you the same thing (well, I'll actually specify what I want evidence for): where's the evidence for intelligent design creationism? We'll wait.

So how about YOU hang with your little religious sect and stop bashing people that have a different faith than you do?
Yawn. Again with the "science is a religion". Like Skeptico said, grow up.

I don't think I've seen a stronger example of bias, intolerance and hypocrisy in years.
Probably because you don't even read the writings of the creationists you're defending.

You're really not very good at this are you?

"So this religion of "Science" as you call it"

You know, this is repeated by woos and religious nutters so often I think I might just have to state it for a third time in as many posts:

WE (meaning skeptics) don't call science a religion, YOU (meaning idiots) do.

"with your pious little "Science Priests" in their little white lab coats (men of the white cloth?)"

Not science priests, scientists. Dear oh dear. Did you get all your information from creationist/woo soundbites and B movies made in the 1950s?

"they sure know the truth, don't they?!"

No. And they don't claim to either. The ones who do claim that are people like you (idiots).

"It's in their Holey Scriptures, the Journals of Science!"

Oh what a devastating play on words. Oscar Wilde look out. Of course a simple Google search shows it wasn't your idea. Wilde can rest easy.

"Where's the empirical evidence?"

Of what?

"There is none."

There is none of what?

But who dares blaspheme against the Holey Church of Science!?.

Me. All churches suck whale nuts and sleep with donkeys. Good enough?

"So how about YOU hang with your little religious sect and stop bashing people that have a different faith than you do?"

Sorry, don't have one. And I'll stop bashing them as soon as they stop interfering or trying to interfere with my life.

"Interesting thought, eh?"

Er.No. No it isn't.

"Your intense hatred for this lady is pretty disturbing."

Oh now your pulling my plonker. A mild blog entry criticising blatantly silly arguments is intense hatred?

No numb nuts, intense hatred is protestants and catholics burning each other at the stake or killing each other with car bombs. Intense hatred is pogroms against Jewish people. Intense hatred is Islamic terrorists blowing themselves up in Israeli Pizza Huts.

Can you spot a connection?

"I don't think I've seen a stronger example of bias, intolerance and hypocrisy in years. "

Oh well, since you are such an expert in these areas you will have no problem highlighting one instance of each of these in the original blog post.

Just one of each will be fine.

Take your time.

There's no rush.

Woah, looks like html tags are back. Wierd. I posted on the torture thread and my italics disappeared in the post but were visible in the preview so I thought I'd try them here just in case and it worked.

You should get the hamster that runs the server checked out.

test html in comments

this is a blockquote

unquoted

itailcs

normal

Jimmy:

html tags do seem to be working but the formatting doesn’t show while you’re in the 5 minutes “edit time”. When the 5 mins is up the blockquotes etc are working.

blockquote

Pretty stupid, I agree.

I think it may also have something to do with how MSN explorer is loading the pages for me, the first time I loaded this page this morning your first test comment had no tags in and the second one did, and my bold comments from last night were not bolded.

I refreshed the page and they were all working, and when the page refreshed after I clicked reply all the tags had stopped working again!

I've had similar issues with the html tags using WinXP+Firefox, if that helps.

OK I'm sick of this now. I have just disabled Typepad Connect and gone back to the simple comment system that worked before. There will be no avatars (big deal) and no "Edit" facility (use post preview), no "reply to" (you'll have to say who you're replying to) but otherwise it should be better.

That works for me. I didn't see much value in the new system anyway. the edit feature was nice, but preview will be fine.

I would rather my markup look right than be able to edit posts the new way.

The main difference between religion and science, in a pragmatic sense, is that science works. There's no ambiguity or reasonable doubt about the fact that it really does work.

We wouldn't be able to do what is essentially "magic" otherwise - e.g. instantly communicating through electronics from one part of the world to another. A lot of it is engineering, but engineering is nothing but applied science. It requires a scientific foundation.

Just because creationists put forward a rational alternative doesn't mean it is automatically wrong. The scientific consensus denies paranormal events and any rational explanations for them. This is not scientific.
Computer programs have now been devised on the concepts of evolution. Over many ‘generations’, the programs evolve to be better programs, adapting through natural selection. However, this is not the whole picture.
In order to know in which direction evolution must go, the programs are given a ‘basic design function’, without which they could not work. This is a form of intelligence within evolution. It is not inconceivable that a similar process could lie in evolution proper. It is the challenge of theology and science to study the possibility rather than bicker.
https://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/evolution/

Anthony:

Exactly what about creationism is rational?

The scientific consensus denies paranormal events and any rational explanations for them.

Where there are rational explanations for paranormal events it is not the scientific consensus that denies them - it's the people who believe it's ghosts, fairies, aliens or something else supernatural that deny the rational explanations.

It is the challenge of theology and science to study the possibility rather than bicker.

Theology has absolutely no place in the scientific study of evolution.

PS. To everyone else, finally started my own blog, feel free to pop by for tea and biscuits.

Terrible truth, beautiful lie

Anthony, you wrote:

Just because creationists put forward a rational alternative
Bzzzzt!!!!

doesn't mean it is automatically wrong.
Correct. It isn't "automatically" wrong. There are probably several billion clear, demonstrable reasons why creationism doesn't even qualify as an idle musing let alone an "alternative". I suggest you try reading a book about science sometime before attempting to lecture others about it.

The scientific consensus denies paranormal events
No it doesn't. It just doesn't bother with things for which no evidence has ever been found. It remains silent on the matter. I think you are confusing "denial" for the rejection of specific arguments and pieces of evidence on the grounds that they are flawed.

and any rational explanations for them.
Rational expalnations of non-existent evidence aren't worth bothering with.

This is not scientific.
You can't deal scientifically with speculations about things for which there is no evidence. Attempts to do this are not scientific.

Computer programs have now been devised....In order to know in which direction evolution must go, the programs are given a ‘basic design function’, without which they could not work. This is a form of intelligence within evolution. It is not inconceivable that a similar process could lie in evolution proper.
No it is indeed not inconceivable, which is why the idea was so popular among scientists up until about 150 years ago. However, they have learned, step by step, detail after detail, that there is no evidence for such theories.

It is the challenge of theology and science to study the possibility rather than bicker.
Well actually scientists have examined that possibility for a couple of hundred years at least. Neither at the the grossest nor the finest level have they ever found the faintest indication that a supernatural force is at work anywhere. There isn't anything for them to study.

If you have evidence please do share it.

If all you have is speculations which aren't even informed by 5 minutes of reading wikipedia, then why bother?

Jimmy, well done!

Computer programs have now been devised on the concepts of evolution. Over many ‘generations’, the programs evolve to be better programs, adapting through natural selection. However, this is not the whole picture.
In order to know in which direction evolution must go, the programs are given a ‘basic design function’, without which they could not work. This is a form of intelligence within evolution.

Anthony, you are missing the basic idea behind programs such as Avida. One of the claims of the so-called intelligent design movement is that some aspects of life are “irreducibly complex”, and so could not have evolved. Avida showed that irreducible complexity can and does evolve. In other words, Avida proved that Behe’s claims about irreducible complexity were wrong. It is irrelevant that the programs started with some created function – they evolved new ones.

You need to do some more reading about evolution to try to avoid some of the basic mistakes you are making. For example, on your blog you write:

The theory of evolution is neat and rational, but whilst some form of evolution is definitely correct, there are many problems with the theory as it stands. For instance, it requires slow change, whereas evidence suggests something different.

No, the evidence does suggest slow change. What you are probably referring to is the Cambrian so-called “explosion”. But even in the Cambrian, changes in species still took millions of years. If you spend some time reading Talk.Origins you might avoid making these basic mistakes of repeating ideas that have been refuted numerous times already.

"finally started my own blog"

its about fucking time. I bet you get a mabus visit before I do.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site