Skip to comments.Motive Mongering: Does It Belong in Science?
Posted on 02/26/2009 8:22:42 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Motive Mongering: Does It Belong in Science?
Feb 26, 2009 Amanda Gefter, a book reviewer and science editor, felt the need to warn the world about the creationists. She wrote a blog entry at New Scientist called How to spot a hidden religious agenda.
In addition, Gefter listed concepts and emphases that she felt betray a hidden agenda: an emphasis on complex molecular machines, the reference to quantum physics in support of free will, and calls for academic freedom (which she says can be translated as the acceptance of creationism). Lastly, she disclaimed any connection between the truth of a scientific theory (like evolution) with its social consequences (like the Holocaust), as explored in the movie Expelled.
Bottom line: It is crucial to the publics intellectual health to know when science really is science. Those with a religious agenda will continue to disguise their true views in their effort to win supporters, so please read between the lines....
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
The Temple of Darwinistic Materialism likes the idea of no free will. They prefer to think we are purely stimulus-response vehicles.
Then don’t eat it. It’s a free country (while it lasts).
Why would she consider moral implications when she, as an Ahiest, denies the existence of absolute good and evil? To Athiests, morality is simply a convenience, an arbitrary set of rules to make society work better, whatever that means.
I prefer Taylor Ham.
To Athiests, morality is simply a convenience, an arbitrary set of rules to make society work bet
Now I’m confused. I’ve read on this forum, time and time again, that atheism, in denying absolute truth, made it OK for us to have as much sex as we wanted. Now you’re telling me that it’s not about sex, but about control (making society work better), which, from where I sit, is one of the purposes of man made religion (which I kind of suspect is the only kind).
I am confused. When was it posted that people of faith don’t/can’t have sex. You got it wrong buddy, sex is a gift from God, and what a gift it is!!! wooohooo
When was it posted that people of faith dont/cant have sex.
With multiple partners outside the marriage bond? Wow. Christianity has changed!
She should know the difference between science and psychology.;)
I did not say that. But then again we now know where your thoughts/assumptions lie. tsk tsk
I’m of the belief that most atheists embrace atheism because they refuse to accept the consequences of their actions... In a way, they are “denying the judge”.
I also suspect that many atheists are the kind of people who may have gotten away with some really horrible crime like kidnapping a young child and murdering her but where never brought to justice. They hide what feelings of guilt they have with a pretentious “there is no god” rationalizing.
Of course, there are those who simply don’t believe in a god of any kind - I got no beef with them but the child killers need to be hunted down wherever they are hiding - even if they happen to be teaching “evolutionary biology” in some “prestigious” university where the concept of global warming is, I apologize for bringing this up in a thread dedicated to atheism, treated as gospel.
I'm rather skeptical of that myself. But I have to wonder, does she then believe there is no such thing as free will? Has she considered the moral implications of that?
Quantum Physics has essentially refuted the Newtonian idea "Determinism". The universe is now excepted as "Indeterminate". It has theological and philosophical implications for many people.
"God does not play dice with the universe"
See, I’m not sure about that. I don’t know what you’re background is - I’m a Ph.D. student in physics. And it seems to me, as well as to other physicists I’ve discussed the issue with, that quantum mechanics is still deterministic, it’s just probabalitically deterministic rather than absolutely deterministic. You may no longer be able to say “that electron is here,” but you can still say “there is an 80% chance that electron is here, and a 20% chance that it’s over there.” You can still make predictions. If you looked at 1000 such electrons, you would be puzzled if something other than ~800 were here, and ~200 were over there. QM is still deterministic.
If you stick to a 100% naturalistic explanation then it is "indeterminate". But if you bring in "probabalitically deterministic" you open the door to theological explanations.
I recall a physicist saying "yes... the universe is ruled by chance, but God runs the Casino".