The wages of religious fraud are lucerative speaking tours, book royalties, flocks of admirers.
Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
200
On the contrary, the CRIDers have been trying, for more than a hundred years, to suppress the ToE. Having failed in that attempt, they are now trying to "drown out" the theory with the white noise of ID, much like a kid who yells "NA-NA-NA" at the top of their lungs when someone else (usually an adult) is trying to speak sense to them.
If the man-from-monkey crowd are secure in the correctness of their theories, believing that in honest debate their view will prevail, then why are they attempting to "burn the books" of those with an alternative view?
Wha a cute little strawman you made! We should put that up on the fridge! Again, though, your strawman bears a striking resemblance to ID. Book burning? Lord knows there are plenty of them around, since evo-bashing is so profitable. But that's never been the way of science. All you have to do is get yourself some evidence and you'll have a chair at the big boys table. Or you can continue learning from the libs and use the "affirmative action" approach. You know, where qualifications are rendered irrelevant in light of diversity?
To be completely fair, scientists are equally capable of such shenanigans (e.g. the recent Korean stem-cell debacle) - and scientists are equally capable of fraud. However, the very nature of science causes it to self-correct over time - research that yields inconsistent or fraudulent results will either not be duplicable or will not fit in the paradigm once future research is done.
I'll be the first to admit that the process sometimes drags its feet in its self-corrections, but important info that is wrong is bound to get called out eventually, and has done so repeatedly in the past and will continue to do so.
Bzzzt! WRONG!
I think you explained that very well.
Congratulations. You have just concurred with, albeit unintentionally, the theory of evolution.
Apparently most Americans have enough intelligence to see the ToE for what it really is; a lie.
Doesn't take a degree in science to understand the arguments for and against.
"Doesn't take a degree in science to understand the arguments for and against."
Though such a degree will almost certainly leave one with the conviction that evolution is correct.
that much.
I basically agree with your main point here about the necessary (and in fact, self-imposed) limitation of science: it is just not and cannot be in the business of testing the existence, leave alone the nature, of God. Its working assumption is that natural phenomena arise from natural rather than supernatural causes, as supernatural causes cannot be investigated.
And isn't this what is said in science classes anyway? [And a footnote: why is the big tussle about Biology classes rather than chemistry or physics?]. I really can't believe that this is not stated in some way.
Why is there so much hysteria in the scientific community at noting these limitations within science class or texts?
I don't accept the characterisation of "hysteria" here, but that is to one side. Consider what the reaction would be if lobbyists sought legislative changes to require a 'disclaimer' to be read out before any church service to the effect that religion cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Imagine your own reaction if a law required a sticker to be placed on the cover of every Bible stating that portions of scripture may be false. I would expect you to be up in arms--as I would. I assure you, I would be standing shoulder to shoulder with you in outrage over such a thing.
I do not see science gunning for religion here at all, though I do see how the basic working assumption of science is necessarily at odds with the tenants of some (by no means all, or even most) schools of faith. So I see no need or benefit whatsoever than doing anything different from at present, e.g., science and science only in the science classrooms, religion in philosophy classes, homes, and places of worship, as each chooses.
Yeah, but I was in the zone.
The wages of religious fraud are lucerative speaking tours, book royalties, flocks of admirers.
I have no problem with adaptation. That is what is so wonderful about God's creation. I just don't fall for the we descended from ape-like creatures crap.
As long as you don't mess with the IRS, apparently.
Not paying is one thing. Being a celebrity who advises others against paying is another.
I know of many well-qualified scientists who disagree with your statement.
If science is truly neutral on religion as claimed, the requests of critics of evolution wouldn't ruffle many feathers.
This point seems to keep spinning around and around. If there is a scientific basis for that criticism, then I would expect science to consider it. But since the basis of the criticism is purely religious, why should that be addressed by science?
If science is clueless regarding God's existence or non-existence, then a few minutes of class time discussing this fact wouldn't hurt anything.
Again, why is the burden of faith-reinforcement being placed upon science? Spending a few minutes in church discussing the lack of evidence for God's existence wouldn't hurt anything either. Since the faith of many of us requires no proof, this wouldn't (and doesn't) change that faith. But to some whose faith might be weak, it could have serious repercussions.
Instead, let's let theologians discuss God in church in the manner they see fit, and let scientists/teachers discuss nature in science class.
I have been involved in Republican politics for a whole lot of years, and you couldn't be more wrong. The religious right is the most fickle constituency that the GOP has. I have honestly lost count of the number of times that the religious right has openly supported pro-life democrats over pro-choice republicans, stayed home from a convention or other meeting because none of "their" topics were being addressed (sometimes resulting in no quorum), refused to vote in a race because the republican "doesn't go to the right church", maliciously put a spoiler in a primary for the same "not the right church" reason, etc. They are the most inconsistent and undependable voting block that the GOP has.
You're half-right.
That would be because a good chunk of the religious right was, until recently, Jim Crow Democrat.
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.