Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 10/24/2009 4:02:17 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oct 22, 2009 — “We have kept the creationist barbarians from the gate,” announced a professor at Hong Kong University triumphantly. A news article in Science this week described tensions in the city over the teaching of evolution. The Darwinists won a vote over a change in wording in the science curriculum that would have “opened the door to teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” The door must be shut tight, apparently. Even the possibility of this happening created a furore.
Reporter Richard Stone said, “As a year of honoring Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution draws to a close, scientists in Hong Kong are celebrating a partial victory in what is likely to be an ongoing war against proponents of teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” He called the partial victory “bittersweet” because it did not revise the guidelines, nor did it rein in “the few dozen schools in Hong Kong that openly espouse creationism.”
Stone said that most schools in Hong Kong, though publicly funded, are run independently – and many are affiliated with churches. The author of the “barbarians” comment, David Dudgeon (faculty board chair at U of HK) complained...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Barbarians, I don’t know. Sounds a little extreme. “Stupid people” is more like it.
Wow, that Hong Kong University professor sounds an awful lot like this guy:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], “Billions and Billions of Demons”, Review of “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997. (Emphasis in original)
That would make sense if he were talking about the Temple of Darwin drones. Were you perchance looking in the mirror when you blurted that out?
Kinda sensitive aren't they? LOL!
“Stupid people” is a little off the mark. FR Trolls is what I had in mind.
Your inability to understand the alliteration is not unexpected.
You sound like obama, doing a baby’s “whah whah” when people say mean things about your ignorance.
Boo hoo.
>>That would make sense if he were talking about the Temple of Darwin drones. Were you perchance looking in the mirror when you blurted that out?<<
Ah, the ever-present and devastating “I am rubber, you are glue” retort!
You are the best example of creationist “debate” we can hope for!
He should have called them willfully ignorant instead.
"Who would not deny the name of human being to a man who, on seeing the regular motions of the heaven and the fixed order of the stars and the accurate interconnexion and interrelation of all things, can deny that these things possess any rational design, and can maintain that phenomena, the wisdom of whose ordering transcends the capacity of our wisdom to understand it, take place by chance? When we see something moved by machinery, like an orrery or clock or many other such things, we do not doubt that these contrivances are the work of reason; when therefore we behold the whole compass of the heaven moving with revolutions of marvelous velocity and executing with perfect regularity the annual changes of the seasons with absolute safety and security for all things, how can we doubt that all this is effected not merely by reason, but by a reason that is transcendent and divine?…
Can any sane person believe that all this array of stars and this vast celestial adornment could have been created out of atoms rushing to and fro fortuitously and at random? or could any other being devoid of intelligence and reason have created them? Not merely did their creation postulate intelligence, but it is impossible to understand their nature without intelligence of a high order…
To come now from things celestial to things terrestrial, which is there among these latter which does not clearly display the rational design of an intelligent being? In the first place, with the vegetation that springs from the earth, the stocks both give stability to the parts which they sustain and draw from the ground the sap to nourish the parts upheld by the roots; and the trunks are covered with bark or rind, the better to protect them against cold and heat. Again the vines cling to their props with their tendrils as with hands, and thus raise themselves erect like animals. Nay more, it is said that if planted near cabbages they shun them like pestilential and noxious things, and will not touch them at any point. Again what a variety there is of animals, and what capacity they possess of persisting true to their various kinds! Some of them are protected by hides, others are clothed with fleeces, others bristle with spines; some we see covered with feathers, some with scales, some armed with horns, some equipped with wings to escape their foes. Nature, however, has provided with bounteous plenty for each species of animal that food which is suited for it. I might show in detail what provision has been made in the forms of the animals for appropriating and assimilating this food, how skilful and exact is the disposition of the various parts, how marvelous the structure of the limbs. For all the organs, at least those contained within the body, are so formed and so placed that none of them is superfluous or not necessary for the preservation of life."
--Cicero’s, On the Nature of the Gods, 45 BC
>>of the real struggle between science and the supernatural<<
Well, that is pretty honest. Now, tell us all how we put the supernatural into science.
“After this step, chant ‘zooga zooga’ 3 times to put the spirit of Xogni into the material.”
That’s the most revealing evolutionist quote ever. Thanks.
It’s a lot like mixed martial arts. When you know your opposition can’t take you down, it gives you complete freedom in your stand-up game.
>>He should have called them willfully ignorant instead.<<
Next up:
1) You are an evil atheist if you understand science
2) Understanding TToE=”Darwinist”=”religion of Darwin” (science be damned)
3) Any possible hole in TToE removes the entire Theory
4) TToE research is like AGW “research”
You can make a drinking game out of the depth of ignorance on these threads. It doesn’t matter how many times people who understand science post the reality, they just keep attempting to show the world there is a small lunatic fringe of Luddites who throw poop at things they don’t understand.
>>When you know your opposition can’t take you down, it gives you complete freedom in your stand-up game.<<
And yet, you keep trying.
What an attention-ho.
Try this one for size:
“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”
Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.
You sound like a perfect candidate for the HMS Creation ping list. Drop me a FReepmail if you’d like to join the crew. If not, you can always type in keyword “creation.” All the best—GGG
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise.”
More awesome quotes! I pity the fool (even FR fools) who challenge you to a battle of wits. And it never fails, the evolutionists always retort with insults; never with counter-points.
...he manages to gurgle out as they carry him off the mat...lol!
Then I ask why Darwin's theory of Pangenesis was rejected by science if he's a religious figure. I haven't received an answer yet.
In other (non) news: Astronomy profs revel in keeping Astrology out of the curriculum; Physiology profs rejoice in keeping Phrenology out; Physicists celebrate keeping Geocentrists out; and Mathematicians are positively giddy about forestalling those who insist 2 + 2 = e.
It was always less about ideology than about the power to decide which ideology would be acceptable.
As Mr. Orwell had the character O’Brien state,
“The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”.
LOL!
Keep religion out of the science class. That goes bor both sides.
Or just teach both honestly, and let the chips fall where they may.
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Drawing distinctions between that which the human mind decides is “supernatural” and that which the human mind decides is not super-natural is a task undertaken by fallible humans for their own purposes. We find it a convenient and generally useful exercise in reasoning from our own observations, but have learned over time that many phenomena formerly thought super-natural because they were inexplicable, and also often frightening, partly or largely because inexplicable to our fallible and limited minds, have turned out to be not supernatural at all once we learned how to explain them. Common and obvious example of this shift from supernatural to natural are the eclipses of sun and moon.
‘“Stupid people” is more like it.’
Gee, thanks, TG.
“He should have called them willfully ignorant instead.”
Choosing to believe that the Bible is true is not willful ignorance, but faithful obedience.
As far as spirituality is concerned, but for evolution it's faithful obedience to ignorance.
You don't have to : you just don't insist on materialism either a priori or ab initio.
After all, you still have Occam's razor, ECREE, and "well, we just don't know for sure yet" as layered defenses against rampaging theism.
But since you brought it up -- what is your opinion regarding the final two sentences of Lewontin's quote ("It is not that...in the door" from post 3)?
Agree or disagree? Absolutely, or in the interim so as not to bias your judgment of specific experiments or constructs?
Cheers!
A sarcastic case could be made that the later scientists wanted to get some of the credit for their *own* pet theories, too; and not just from an all-consuming disinterested passion for the TRUTHTM. IN other words, everyone since Darwin has said, "No fair! *I* want to be the high priest!"
Or in a non-sarcastic vein:
Scientists remain very committed to their individual reputation and intellectual prowess, as well as the reputation of their field.
Consider (as examples of such) how Lister was excoriated for advocating cleanliness during surgery and between patients; and why the late Nobel laureate Dick Feynman left the National Academy of Sciences.
Incidentally, you might find the following quip by Leon Lederman (Physics Nobel, former head of Fermilab) interesting:
"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a lot easier time raising money."
Cheers!
Evolutionary science fills me with rage. Why do they keep digging up these damned fossils? Its amazing what they give out grant money for these days...meanwhile cancer is still not cured.
>>After all, you still have Occam’s razor, ECREE, and “well, we just don’t know for sure yet” as layered defenses against rampaging theism.<<
Well, my FRiend, that may all be well and good. But it is philosophy, not science. The point is that philosophy (and its offshoot, theology), belong in philosophy and the soft arts — not in hard science.
There is nothing that says that ID cannot be presented — it can, as a creation story, not as an operational mechanism in the naturalistic world of science.
Oh you said evos! I Thought you were calling us emos. I hate that gothic crap.
>>...he manages to gurgle out as they carry him off the mat...lol!<<
In your dreams, straw-boy.
“The belief that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilised races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of the whole vertebrate series. Dr. J. Barnard Davis has proved70 by many careful measurements, that the mean internal capacity of the skull in Europeans is 92·3 cubic inches; in Americans 87·5; in Asiatics 87·1; and in Australians only 81·9 inches. Professor Broca71 found that skulls from graves in Paris of the nineteenth century, were larger than those from vaults of the twelfth century, in the proportion of 1484 to 1426; and Prichard is persuaded that the present inhabitants of Britain have “much more capacious brain-cases” than the ancient inhabitants. Nevertheless it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious.”
I would guess by “Australians” Darwin meant the aborigines.
Europeans, including the British, naturally are top of the list.
Yeah the people who think abortion is OK, islam is just a peaceful religion, and every other kind of sick lifestyle out there is jst fine, are NOT Christians. And we are the barbarians? When you deny our Creator, you lose a part of your soul.
INTREP - I don’t have enough faith to be an evolutionist. I have to believe that the incredible amount of order in the vast number of systems that make up this universe came about by accident, and that it all came from nothing. Nope...that’s a bridge too far!
==And, there are lots of faithful Christians who have no problems believing in Jesus Christ and thinking that evolution may be true. Yet it appears they are atheists in your view.
It always comes down to this! And as I keep explaining, I have never run into a creationist who believes you have to be a biblical YEC to be a Christian. Clear enough for you? This is about preaching the full gospel of Jesus Christ, which, as Christians well know, begins in Genesis...the very first book of the Bible.
"Most of the stories about the Landlord are probably untrue, therefore the rest are probably untrue."
It is true that the plural of anecdotes is not data: but it does not therefore follow that the singular of anecdote is "necessarily false". And the rub there is that most information of a religious kind occurs outside of a laboratory, like the rest of human experience.
Rather an inconvenience for testing -- and what makes it worse are the explicit stories of the sort that "He could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief": implying that a laboratory setting of prayer might defeat its own purpose.
G. K. Chesterton had a good description of this in Chapter 9 of Orthodoxy:
"If you choose to say, "I will believe that Miss Brown called her fiancé a periwinkle or, any other endearing term, if she will repeat the word before seventeen psychologists," then I shall reply, "Very well, if those are your conditions, you will never get the truth, for she certainly will not say it." It is just as unscientific as it is unphilosophical to be surprised that in an unsympathetic atmosphere certain extraordinary sympathies do not arise."
Cheers!
The supernatural threatens to upset this applecart: by removing the second part (closed system) it presents the risk of undermining the first (uniformity of causes).
Which is why I asked your opinion on the last two sentences of the quote in post #3.
May I ask again, whether you agree with those sentences?
Cheers!
When creationists institute the industrialised murder of 6 million Jews, Slavs, gypsies, and homosexuals; when they murder millions in a continent-wide gulag system; when they destroy tens of millions in a Great Leap Forward - as evolutionists have done - then this professor may have a point.
Until then, he’s just another whiny leftard idiot drooling on his shirt.
Thanks for the ping!
>>>“We have kept the creationist barbarians from the gate,” Kinda sensitive aren’t they? LOL!
In the same way municipal engineers get sensitive about not allowing raw sewage pumped into the city drinking water lines. Well done Hong Kong educators.
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.