Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
Ahhhh.....the good old 1970s. I remember going to school assemblies and having “scientists” tell us that: There would be no more oil after 1980 2. Pollution would be so bad that mothers couldn’t nurse their babies because their milk would be poison 3. We would all have to live near the equator because of the coming man-caused ice age. Three out of three wrong. Now, a batter with a 0% batting average goes away, but scientists just keep talking.
Why not post the whole article?
Ahhhh.....the good old 1970s. I remember going to school assemblies and having “scientists” tell us that: There would be no more oil after 1980 2. Pollution would be so bad that mothers couldn’t nurse their babies because their milk would be poison 3. We would all have to live near the equator because of the coming man-caused ice age. Three out of three wrong. Now, a batter with a 0% batting average goes away, but scientists just keep talking, and getting paid for being wrong.
Read Eisenhower quotation in post 12.
They are completely orthogonal. Your desire for a spiritual approach to education has no place in science courses of any sort. Science is about method, and this method is increasingly and predominantly guiding policy because it *works*.
The real problem here is not “scientism”, but obscurantism. As Orwell said: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH; and this is how I view political-religious folks. Strong because they are ultimately embracing their very ignorance.
As Haldane pointed out: The moment someone shows me a rabbit fossil from the precambrian, I will cease to believe in evolution. This is how it is: Nothing should be sacred in the pursuit of natural truth.
"My desire"????? You're not a very careful reader. Better read my posts in this thread again... OR read them for the first time. Sheesh!
If you're talking about biological science, you must have been out of the loop for quite awhile. :)
Wrong. Some 66% of scientists overall and some 59% of biologists believe in God.
The things you think you know are wrong. Again.
Thank you.
There are many conservatives who recognize that the theory of evolution has almost overwhelming evidence to support it’s primary points. If the Earth is only 6000 years old then physics is wrong, chemistry is wrong, and astronomy is wrong.
That said, when I look at the incredible variety of lifeforms and the amazing adaptions, I can perfectly understand why people see the Hand of the Creator. I have no problem with teachers showing critiques of evolution and the arguments of Intelligent Design alongside conventional biology.
The bottom line is that true science is not political.
You wrote: “The things you think you know are wrong. Again.”
On the contrary, the very article you linked to backs up what I said about “biologists”. Here is the key excerpt from your 2005 article:
“Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services ___than researchers in the natural sciences___, the study found.
“The opposite had been expected.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists — people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology — said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe. ...”
And here’s even more:
August 23, 2005
Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?pagewanted=print
[snip]
Dr. Francis S. Collins, who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute .... noted that ____until relatively recently____, most scientists were believers. “Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature,” he said. ...
[snip]
Polling Scientists on Beliefs
According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, ____40 percent____ of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray “in expectation of receiving an answer.”
The survey, by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia, was intended ____to replicate one conducted in 1914, and the results were virtually unchanged.____ In both cases, participants were drawn from a directory of American scientists. ....
[[[[ Surveys of the last decade have shown that religious beliefs about God, ___professed by 93 percent of Americans___ have become more diverse. When Americans are ___asked to define “God,”___ a fourth of them opt for something other than a conventional theistic deity. ....
....Despite the stable 40-60 split in belief-disbelief over 80 years, there has been ___a significant shift in views held by the three professions surveyed—mathematics, biology, and physics/astronomy.___
The 1996 survey showed that scientists in mathematics are most inclined to hold belief in God (44.6 percent).
While biologists showed the highest rates of disbelief/doubt in Leuba’s day (69.5 percent),
that ranking was given to physicists and astronomers this time around (77.9 percent). http://www.beliefnet.com/News/1999/12/Scientific-Semi-Belief.aspx ]]]]
.....when Dr. Larson put part of the same survey ____ to “leading scientists”____ - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation’s most eminent scientific organization - ____fewer than 10 percent____ professed belief in a personal God or human immortality.
This response is not surprising to researchers like Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, a member of the academy and a winner of the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his work in particle physics. He said he could understand why religious people would believe that anything that eroded belief was destructive. But he added: “I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion. That’s a good thing.”
No God, No Moral Compass?
He rejects the idea that scientists who reject religion are arrogant. “We know how many mistakes we’ve made,” Dr. Weinberg said. And he is angered by assertions that people without religious faith are without a moral compass.
In any event, he added, “the experience of being a scientist makes religion seem fairly irrelevant,” he said. ____ “Most scientists I know simply don’t think about it very much. ____ They don’t think about religion enough to qualify as practicing atheists.”
___Most scientists he knows who do believe in God....believe in “a God who is behind the laws of nature but who is not intervening.”____
<>
Noted scientist tackles question of religious faith
http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2011/06/29/news/news5.txt
Dr. Francis Collins
Wednesday, ___June 29, 2011___ 11:01 AM PDT
[snip]
Like many scientists, Collins said he believes the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago.
___Unlike most scientists___, Collins argued that God created the universe, bestowing it with evolution as the mechanism that would shape its eventual form. From evolution, man was gifted with free will, consciousness and morality. Thus man was made “in God’s image,” Collins said. Challenging scientists who say evolution disproves the existence of a higher being....”
[snip] bttt
Majority is what I said.
Are you unaware that >50% is a majority?
Only 38% of natural scientists didn’t believe in God. A majority of those in the natural science DID believe in God.
Thus the majority of scientists are people of faith in God.
As I said.
“...Thus the majority of scientists are people of faith in God. ...”
From my post: “God” defined as?
Also from my post:
.....when Dr. Larson put part of the same survey ____ to “leading scientists”____ - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation’s most eminent scientific organization - ____fewer than 10 percent____ professed belief in a personal God or human immortality.
Some 59% of biologists asked if they believed in God marked “Yes”.
Thus a majority of biologists believed in God.
A majority of scientists believe in God.
It is a creationist myth that scientists are atheists and that science is the domain of atheism. Thus their overall ignorance of the methodology of and findings of science.
The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist.
Dr. Francis Collins is doing what religious people do more often than not: Move the goal posts in such a way that their idea of a ‘God’ fits neatly in the gaps. The God of the Gaps. In other words, the usual fallacy of conjuring up a Golem of sorts that is based on nothing other than sophism.
Dr. Francis Collins is a political appointee. Never forget that.
Thanks for the ping. President Eisenhower made several good points in that speech.
It’s important to convince people that they are nothing but an accidental variation of monkeys. It is especially important to convince children of this. It is done by using the authority of science. Tell them that “Scientists say you are a new kind of monkey.” They believe it. Believing that you are no different from a monkey makes it far easier to digest other morsels of libero-marxist truth, which seem trivial in comparison with the monkey story.
Meaningless statements (as I noted in my previous posts above) unless further questions are asked, such as, "please define the god in which you believe." Jihadists believe in "god", they know him as "Allah".
"It is a creationist myth that scientists are atheists and that science is the domain of atheism. Thus their overall ignorance of the methodology of and findings of science."
There are fundamentalist "literalists" on both sides of the equation.
"The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist."
"Mis-educated", and "mis-informed" are more correct terms that would apply to most and render them innocent. Of course, some are "willfully ignorant" for various reasons. They won't be held guiltless.
The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth, About Everything
"...There are, of course, modern, deviant forms of Christianity that reject evolution, but these turn out to be much more similar to materialistic science, not in terms of content, of course, but in the form of thought.
"We are not a participant in this battle, since it is really between two forms of flatland literalism which can only account for creation with recourse to magic -- the magic of "it just happened" vs. the magic of "God made it all happen."
"The latter is, of course, closer to ultimate truth, but this is little consolation once we remember that it is also what the Mohammedans believe -- that God is responsible for everylittlething that happens, with no mediation by anything else, from physical law to human free will. So in either case -- the false religion of scientism or the bogus science of religionism -- we end up with man stripped of his innate dignity, and a man without intrinsic dignity is not a man. ...."
MORE:
It appears as if you're accusing the ex-atheist (Dr. Collins) of willful ignorance, rather than just being a sincere "learner" in the process of trying to reconcile what he knows about the material world, with what he has been taught (or indoctrinated) about the non-material world.
God knows if he's innocent or guilty in this regard, you don't.
See my previous post above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
