Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Motive Mongering: Does It Belong in Science?
CEH ^ | February 26, 2009

Posted on 02/26/2009 8:22:42 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.

With that being said, why do you suppose Creationists have such a bugaboo about chance? Most assume that if there is any element of chance involved that means that God is not in control, which is not scriptural, and truth be told, quite idiotic.


41 posted on 02/26/2009 12:02:06 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Not the stuff of honest debate, IMHO.

Well, technically I suppose. I guess I could have said "the article doesn't say but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the woman is an athiest so why should she be concerned about morality......." That too would have achieved the goal of getting an athiest/morality discussion going, and, met the "honest debate" standard. Or, more specifically, the introduction into the debate would have met the standard.

42 posted on 02/26/2009 12:09:48 PM PST by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
That would be trivially true, due to the fact that there are not very many children who attend prestigious universities. Criminals tend to gravitate to where their potential victims are.

Precisely.

So I wonder what the per capita ratio would be of, say, government screwl teacher sex crimes to clergy sex crimes.

I have no idea, but it would certainly be intersting to find out.

43 posted on 02/26/2009 12:12:06 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
Well, technically I suppose. I guess I could have said "the article doesn't say but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the woman is an athiest so why should she be concerned about morality......." That too would have achieved the goal of getting an athiest/morality discussion going, and, met the "honest debate" standard. Or, more specifically, the introduction into the debate would have met the standard.

Intentionally trying to take the discussion off topic isn't a particularly honest tactic, either. IMHO.

44 posted on 02/26/2009 12:40:57 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
With that being said, why do you suppose Creationists have such a bugaboo about chance? Most assume that if there is any element of chance involved that means that God is not in control, which is not scriptural, and truth be told, quite idiotic.

The theological debate between Free Will and Predestination has been around for centuries.

C.S. Lewis has a chapter on the subject. And a book Entitled "Free Will" by Thomas Pink is very good. And then there was the TULIP Convention around the time of The Reformation or shortly thereafter.

Essentially the Protestants adopted Predestination contained in Calvin's five points and the Roman Catholics adopted Freewill.


45 posted on 02/26/2009 12:58:05 PM PST by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "The Iron Lady of the North")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Intentionally trying to take the discussion off topic isn't a particularly honest tactic, either. IMHO

Well excuuuuuuussssse meeeeeeee!

All kidding aside, keep in mind that my first post was to #3 in which the issue of morality was raised. Therefore I was "on topic" with respect to that post.

46 posted on 02/26/2009 1:06:52 PM PST by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


47 posted on 02/26/2009 1:10:00 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
All kidding aside, keep in mind that my first post was to #3 in which the issue of morality was raised. Therefore I was "on topic" with respect to that post.

Okay. But is the article about the immorality of atheists? Don't forget that the subject of discussion is the article.

48 posted on 02/26/2009 1:20:28 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: svcw
Good question. Another question: can atheist be moral? They certainly can be legal, maybe even ethical but moral?

SOCRATES: Then try to show me in this way what part of the just is holiness, so that we may tell Meletus to cease from wronging me, and to give up prosecuting me for irreligion, because we have adequately learned from you piety and religion, and the reverse. - The Euthyphro

49 posted on 02/26/2009 3:07:03 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Bottom line: “It is crucial to the public’s 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.”...

Those with an agenda will disguise their true views using science as the smokescreen.

Recognizing when science is really science can only help.

50 posted on 02/26/2009 4:48:30 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kc8ukw
...and calls for “academic freedom” (which she says can be translated as “the acceptance of creationism”).

So she's opposed to academic freedom, too, I see.

The thought police are so easy to pick out.

51 posted on 02/26/2009 4:51:01 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dmz; HerrBlucher

HerrBlucher: “Where did I say anything about sex? Morality goes far beyond that. It is telling though that you think morality necessarily means sexual morality.”
______

dmz: “Where did I suggest that you did? It is telling that you seem unable to read for comprehension.”

Back to post 10, your post....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2194585/posts?page=10#10

HerrBlucher, only said morality. You brought up the sex.


52 posted on 02/26/2009 4:58:41 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.

With that being said, why do you suppose Creationists have such a bugaboo about chance? Most assume that if there is any element of chance involved that means that God is not in control, which is not scriptural, and truth be told, quite idiotic.

That's simply because the evos keep using chance as an argument as evidence against the existence of God. They aren't the ones who started ir then, if they believe the Bible.

So then, can we presume that since chance doesn't mean that God is not in control, that disorder and randomness are not evidences against God, like the evos like to put forth?

So all evidence, both order and complexity, and chance, are no evidence against God at all. There's no precedent in that case for undirected evolution or the possibility of any of the universe or life arising without an intelligent cause.

53 posted on 02/26/2009 5:12:28 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Motive Mongering: Does It Belong in Science?

What's her motive I wonder?

She's all bent out of shape about worrying about other's motives, but doesn't seem to consider that she's got her own.

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.”

What's her agenda in warning people about creationists?

54 posted on 02/26/2009 5:17:31 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Chance in nature is certainly not an argument against God, it is tantamount to saying that God has no power over random events and the Bible says otherwise.

So if one believes in God and the Bible then chance in nature is certainly not the same as saying it doesn't turn out the way God intended.

Chance is used in nature all the time, when making reproductive cells we mix up our parents DNA in such a random fashion that distances between genes in pre sequencing days were calculated in the % chance that there would be a chromosome switching event (grandma's DNA for grandpa's DNA) between the two genes, called CentiMorgans.

55 posted on 02/26/2009 5:43:31 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: metmom
What's her motive I wonder?

Would it be appropriate to wonder what yours is for asking?

56 posted on 02/26/2009 6:24:50 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
57 posted on 02/26/2009 8:39:08 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: metmom; HerrBlucher
“HerrBlucher, only said morality. You brought up the sex.” [excerpt]
Hmm, yeah, dmz is a DCer.
58 posted on 02/26/2009 8:42:30 PM PST by Fichori (If YOU Evolved, YOUR Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are VOID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

A prolific one at that. They come here like locusts, trolling for their perverted causes.


59 posted on 02/27/2009 4:13:53 AM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom
Would it be appropriate to wonder what yours is for asking?

And ditto to your motive(not whether it is appropriate). We could go infinite regress on this subject, but the answer is a simple one, the thread is based upon an article calling into question motives. So it would seem very appropriate for metmom to turn the question on the author. The answer to your question as to whether it would be appropriate to wonder about metmom's motive for asking would seem to lie within yourself(since wondering is a process of a mind) and therefore cannot be answered by anyone else.

60 posted on 02/27/2009 1:26:41 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson