Asian Darwinist Profs Call Creationists Barbarians

CEH ^ | October 22, 2009

[Moonman62]

2) Understanding TToE=”Darwinist”=”religion of Darwin” (science be damned)

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.

[Phileleutherus Franciscus]

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.

[TexasAg]

And it never fails, the evolutionists always retort with insults; never with counter-points.

You're kidding, right? These threads are filled with name calling, a lot from GGG. Plenty of people raise valid points about the science. And the response is often anyone who doesn't agree is a temple of Darwin worshipper, an evo-aetheist, etc. These threads used to be somewhat entertaining, but that fades pretty quick.

[count-your-change]

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?”.

[mountainlion]

OK, they called Ceationsists Barbarians but they did not prove it or prove darwinists and monkeys to be “Gentlemen”.

[count-your-change]

Darwin Central must be over-booked tonight since it's overflow is showing up here.

[GodGunsGuts]

I never could figure out why the evos and evo-atheists get upset about being referred to evos and evo-atheists. Go figure. I think their reaction is very similar to liberals who get upset when you call them liberals. Ever notice that conservatives never get upset for being referred to as such???

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL!

[ApplegateRanch]

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.

[GodGunsGuts]

You took the words right out of my mouth!

[Elsiejay]

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.

[TexasAg]

I never could figure out why the evos and evo-atheists get upset about being referred to evos and evo-atheists. Go figure.

Posting an explanation about why you do your name-calling doesn't change the fact that you do lots of name-calling on the threads you start. You intentionally keep many or all of your threads out of the Religion forum (where they belong) so the Religion forum rules won't apply. This allows bad behavior on both sides, including your own insults.

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.

[Marie2]

‘“Stupid people” is more like it.’

Gee, thanks, TG.

[Marie2]

“He should have called them willfully ignorant instead.”

Choosing to believe that the Bible is true is not willful ignorance, but faithful obedience.

[Moonman62]

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.

[grey_whiskers]

Well, that is pretty honest. Now, tell us all how we put the supernatural into science.

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!

[grey_whiskers]

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.

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 TRUTH^TM. 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!

[RightWingNilla]

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.

[freedumb2003]

>>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.

[RightWingNilla]

I never could figure out why the evos and evo-atheists get upset about being referred to evos and evo-atheists.

Oh you said evos! I Thought you were calling us emos. I hate that gothic crap.