Main > Everything Else
"Scientific American" decides to stop reporting Science, more creationism.
JB:
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on March 26, 2005, 11:45:34 am ---
--- Quote from: APFelon on March 26, 2005, 09:42:09 am ---Which is a shame. It was once a very fine magazine when it actually stuck with science and they kept their bigotry to themselves and their tinfoil hats off of their craniums.
--- End quote ---
The scientific community has been under attack by the Bush Administration and it fundamental Christian subset since he first took office. Would you that SA should just roll over and watch these relentless attacks and smile?
--- End quote ---
It's been going on a lot longer than that.
APFelon:
Let me simply put this forward for you so we can achieve some sort of rhetorical stasis: I am not a religious man. So I am not so sure what I should "be ashamed of", unless you let your own biases assume that I am religious. (It's odd that people don't assume I am black when I stand up for black people... Wonder why that is?)
Let's apply that to science, which is an "observe-theorize" endeavor. For example:
Mr. C observes that I stand up for religion.
Mr. C concludes that I am religious.
The fact is that I am not religious.
Mr. C's theory is wrong, despite his observations.
You had FAITH, though, that you were right and that I was indeed religious. So much for your personal science.
For the record, I don't believe in manmade global warming, either, just as I didn't believe in the "global cooling" fad in the late 1970's. I think that those beliefs takes just as much "faith" as believing in God.
And don't bother citing Internet sources, blah, blah, blah. I have read the points from both camps and I have made my decision based on a rational and logical approach and I find that the "end of the worlders" come up short or are simply pushing a political agenda. For every "global warming" article you post, I could counter with an article from a scientist who says it's all bunk, and I will become bored with it quickly.
And don't bother saying that all scientists believe that the Earth is warming due to manmade emissions. It isn't true. And consensus never, ever changes fact anyway. "Science" once led us to believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat and you create life (rats and maggots) by placing rotten meat under burlap swatch. All "science" by consensus at one point. All garbage.
--- Quote ---It's not bigotry...it's common sense and I hope this is only the beginning.
--- End quote ---
I find this little gem to be more than a little disturbing. If this is just the beginning, can you explian the "end"? Complete purge of religion from the public sphere? A pledge of athiesm from our leaders? Howabout a Stalinist style purge of those who profess a belief in God? How are any of these not the acts of a bigot or a zealot who marches under a secular banner?
--- Quote ---The scientific community has been under attack by the Bush Administration and it fundamental Christian subset since he first took office. Would you that SA should just roll over and watch these relentless attacks and smile?
--- End quote ---
Oh, please do tell. How has the Bush administration attacked science? How has the Bush administration attacked SA? (I am going to assume that you will mention stem cell research or vouchers, or is there something far more sinister forwarded by MoveOn this week?)
Why is it that everything you write on this particular forum somehow has GWB attached to it? It's like playing "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" except with Bush in the middle instead of the Footloose star.
I find the "blame Clinton" crowd contemptable, and my opinion of the "blame Bush" crowd differs very little. It's an obsession, which I believe to be a mental disorder along the lines of thinking the world is out to get you or black helicopters are coming to take you away. To attach Bush (or Clinton, or Rove) to every happening everywhere (even silly stuff like people writing angry letters to the editor of SA) is, in my opinion, much more frightening that those who believe in a "sky God" and are by far more of a threat. The absolutely violent reactions I have seen against people of faith is revolting on every level.
But hey, it's trendy, it's common, and all the cool people are doing it. And as an added bonus, it's poisonous rhetoric that is seen to come from the DNC that will get more votes for "my guy" in 2008.
Say, Hillary looks to be the front runner in the 2008 presidential elections. The problem is that she seems to have found God of late (Never mind, don't worry, it is probably a ruse so she can trick them Bible-thumpin' hillbillys in them red states).
APf
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: APFelon on March 26, 2005, 02:00:53 pm ---
It's an obsession, which I believe to be a mental disorder along the lines of thinking the world is out to get you or black helicopters are coming to take you away.
--- End quote ---
So you're trying to convince me that they're not? I'll need more than just hearsay like that.
Are you considered a hillbilly if you are from a blue state?
I can't believe some of the stuff you post. Clinton started us down this path, and you're just picking up where he left off.
Sheesh. ;)
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: APFelon on March 26, 2005, 02:00:53 pm --- I find the "blame Clinton" crowd contemptable, and my opinion of the "blame Bush" crowd differs very little. It's an obsession, which I believe to be a mental disorder along the lines of thinking the world is out to get you or black helicopters are coming to take you away. To attach Bush (or Clinton, or Rove) to every happening everywhere (even silly stuff like people writing angry letters to the editor of SA) is, in my opinion, much more frightening that those who believe in a "sky God" and are by far more of a threat. The absolutely violent reactions I have seen against people of faith is revolting on every level.
--- End quote ---
I see no solutions in your pragmatic approach, unless you're working on becoming a doormat. No one claims Bush is responsible for everything bad, or everything good. He and his administration, are however, responsible for a lot of goings on in this country. When those "goings-on" are bad, then accountability is in order. Same for praise. However, I see nothing of late to praise him for. Not Iraq..Iraq is still in the oven, we'll see how it turns out when it's done. Not our economy. Not the War on Terror. Not the Schiavo debacle. Not the fusion of Church and State. Not the attempted dismantling of Social Security. Not the tax breaks for the wealthy.
If you can't see how fractured this country is, how galvanized the world is against it, how horrible the security situation is, and how those problems relate directly to decisions Bush and his cronies have made and those they refuse to make, then you've obviously got your head lodged so firmly up where the sun don't shine, I'm surprised you could even find the keyboard to type.
--- Quote ---Mr. C observes that I stand up for religion.
Mr. C concludes that I am religious.
--- End quote ---
Never assumed you were religious. My reference re: shame, was that you; I, we, should *all* be ashamed that our elected political leaders have basically called for an all-out assault on the "reality-based" community, and consistently attempt to counter fact-based, empirical evidence with "faith-based" rhetoric and junk-science. And they get a free-pass from the media and the public while doing it.
You proposed that it's shameful that an editor (not just a person who wrote to the editor) of a scientific magazine decides to defend his magazine's position against an ideological base that has become increasingly hostile to the idea of scientific theory, specifically evolution in this case. I defended SA's right to call that into question. Plus, I thought the writing was witty and enjoyable.
--- Quote ---For every "global warming" article you post, I could counter with an article from a scientist who says it's all bunk, and I will become bored with it quickly.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, 'cuz you've got it all figured out. My mistake.
--- Quote ---I find this little gem to be more than a little disturbing. If this is just the beginning, can you explian the "end"? Complete purge of religion from the public sphere? A pledge of athiesm from our leaders? Howabout a Stalinist style purge of those who profess a belief in God? How are any of these not the acts of a bigot or a zealot who marches under a secular banner?
--- End quote ---
Aaaah, the old slippery-slope argument. Damn, I *never* get tired of that one. If you can't see the difference between the desire for a definitive, continued, seperation of church/state and the call for the absolute abolishment of religion, then there is really no point in trying to discuss this with you.
My views on religion have been posted here before. I really don't care if you want to paint yourself blue and worship Papa Smurf, just don't try to legislate that we all should. Or that a ten ton monument to Papa Smurf should remain in a public courthouse, etc.
--- Quote ---Why is it that everything you write on this particular forum somehow has GWB attached to it?
--- End quote ---
Why not? Does it hurt your feelings?
mrC
shmokes:
--- Quote from: APFelon on March 26, 2005, 02:00:53 pm ---Let's apply that to science, which is an "observe-theorize" endeavor. For example:
Mr. C observes that I stand up for religion.
Mr. C concludes that I am religious.
The fact is that I am not religious.
Mr. C's theory is wrong, despite his observations.
You had FAITH, though, that you were right and that I was indeed religious. So much for your personal science.
--- End quote ---
That's not what faith is, anyway. That would simply be Mr.C coming to an inductive conclusion that turned out to be wrong. Faith involves a great deal more than simply assigning a probability of >50% to something.
And anyway, the conclusion that you are religious is not that unreasonable. There's also context, aside from what you specifically said. If someone on here were arguing that the rights of white people need to be protected from blacks, I would be surprised to find out that the person arguing was himself black. It's similar with religion. Something like 90% of Americans are religious (another thing that could legitimately affect his assumption). God people simply weild a great deal more social power than us atheists because of their numbers.
And even if it was faith, your little scenario would merely have confirmed Mr.C's belief that faith isn't something to be relied upon :P