RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: Casey Luskin Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:01   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:53)
Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.

It's easy to see why FtK thinks Casey's the man - his posts read pretty much like FtK's would if they were run through a spell checker.

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5373
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:05   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,17:53)
Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.

No doubt.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:51   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2008,15:48)
Casey Luskin at BPR:

 
Quote

Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.


Emphasis in original.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.

 
Quote

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)


Source

A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".

And he now 'regrets' writing it, because, after all, he doesn't do that.

Does he regret writing it because we know about it, or because it was against his 'ethics' to write it in the first place?

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:56   

Quote (slpage @ Feb. 05 2008,17:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2008,15:48)
Casey Luskin at BPR:

 
Quote

Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.


Emphasis in original.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.

   
Quote

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)


Source

A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".

And he now 'regrets' writing it, because, after all, he doesn't do that.

Does he regret writing it because we know about it, or because it was against his 'ethics' to write it in the first place?

I was tempted to ask that myself, but decided that it was going off on an irrelevant tangent and there were better things to discuss.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,18:03   

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 05 2008,17:01)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:53)
Casey is polishing his crown of thorns, and I'm sure he'll claim he was banned or somesuch.

It's easy to see why FtK thinks Casey's the man - his posts read pretty much like FtK's would if they were run through a spell checker.

Drop dead...

Hey, this has always been my favorite Genie quote...

         
Quote
"I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"


That's right...use those preachers, Genie!...convert a preacher to Darwinism, and get him to poison his congregation.  I can't believe they let her pull that crap when she makes it abundantly clear what she's up to.

Gag...Eugenie is much more dishonest than all of the DI fellows together!!  Blah!  The woman makes me want to projectile vomit.

[No, that wasn't a personal attack, it was the God's honest truth.]

Hey, Dave:  Kaboom!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,18:10   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:03)
That's right...use those preachers, Genie!...convert a preacher to Darwinism, and get him to poison his congregation.

Because it shows up a common creationist lie that you have to be atheistic to accept science?

Quote
I can't believe they let her pull that crap when she makes it abundantly clear what she's up to.


So contradicting a lie that creationists commonly spread is being dishonest?

Quote
Gag...Eugenie is much more dishonest than all of the DI fellows together!!  Blah!  The woman makes me want to projectile vomit.


Considering I've never met a creationist who can accurately or fairly represent the science they are criticising, I find that more than a little humorous.

Quote
[No, that wasn't a personal attack, it was the God's honest truth.]


Which God, the one that tells you not to bear false witness? He doesn't seem popular with creationists these days.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,18:28   

Quote
Because it shows up a common creationist lie that you have to be atheistic to accept science?


That. is. a. riot.

Eugenie IS an atheist.  She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.  I heard the woman lecture at KU on how Darwinism and religion can work in harmony...blah, blah, blah...there are no conflicts or controversial issues....blah, blah, blah...but, then turns around and blasts anyone whose religion doesn't jive with her philosophical views.

Then the atheist who introduced her asked her if she believed science supported her atheism.  She said yes, and said some of her friends believe that the anthropic principle lends support that there may be a designer of the universe....she smiled condescendingly, waved her hand, and said that the AP doesn't sway her in the least.

She got an A+ from the secular humanists with that little lecture for sure...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,18:39   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:28)
Eugenie IS an atheist.  She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.

For the millionth time, here's something you agreed to, but apparently have now forgotten

SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM.

So turning people on to science, whether via clergymen or via blogs or via the brain transplant that it would take in your case, is not "evangelizing for atheism".

Quit tilting against this windmill, and you might start to make sense sometime soon.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10060
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:01   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:03)
Hey, Dave:  Kaboom!

That's what Jesus would do.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:21   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:28)
That. is. a. riot.

I know, you'd have to wonder why creationists keep repeating it if it's so easily shown up to be a complete lie then wouldn't you?

Quote

Eugenie IS an atheist.


Who cares.

Quote
She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.


So? In the end, there are a great number of religious people who have no issues with evolutionary theory (or science in general, creationism doesn't just completely ignore basic facts of biology, but also physics, chemistry and nearly every other field of science). It is irrelevant as to her personal opinions beyond this, even if the great atheist conspiracy declares religion and evolution is incompatible it doesn't actually change this fact. The opinion of the great atheist conspiracy is irrelevant to the basic fact that a large number of religious people have no issue with evolution.

That makes the creationist dual model canard of either creation (God) or evolution (atheism) a lie.

Simple.

Quote
Then the atheist who introduced her asked her if she believed science supported her atheism.


Again.

Nobody cares (certainly not me, my faith has or was never challenged by anything I learnt from science. People lying for Jesus (IE the Discovery Institute), people dying in my life in absolute pain, the awful actions of others to me and people I care about etc, did more than ANY scientific book ever could).

The factual statement I have said above is X. Your irrelevant babble in this post is Y.

X (the point) ----------------------------------------------------------- > Y (your argument).

Can you see the problem?

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:21   

Go blow wind somewhere else, Dave.

Of course, SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM, but EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.  

She's a "Notable Signer" of the atheist religious creed Humanist Manifesto III, which makes the broad theological claim that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”

So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. The atheists/humanists love the woman...

“...received the Isaac Asimov Science Award from the American Humanist Association, the First Amendment Award from the Playboy Foundation, the James Randi Award from the Skeptic Society.”

Go Genie.  She has her mission....mission impossible.

She's more than welcome to preach from the university podium, but she has another goal...other than a scientific one.  She's out to "enlighten".

Good for her, but every one of you atheists better shut your mouths when you talk about IDers supporting ID for religious reasons.  

There is NO difference between William Dempski and Eugenie Scott in regard to their philosophical beliefs corresponding to their scientific inferences.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:26   

Hey FtK I have a question for you.  What's wrong with being an athiest or advocating atheism?

Either seems to get your panties in a bunch.  How come?

Why do you seem to hate or at least fear atheists?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Zarquon



Posts: 71
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:29   

Quote
There is NO difference between William Dempski and Eugenie Scott in regard to their philosophical beliefs corresponding to their scientific inferences.


Of course there fucking is. Dembski doesn't have any scientific inferences. He's just another scamming preacher.

edited: spelling

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:29   

Notice how FtK is using one of her common tactics - attempting to change the topic of the discussion away from one she finds uncomfortable.

So, FtK, do you agree that perhaps, on just this occasion, Luskin has done something that does not meet the highest standards of honesty? (Predicted reply, if any, along the lines of 'I see far worse every day on AtBC'.)

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:32   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,19:21)
Of course, SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM, but EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.

And still, nobody actually cares. I could meet her in person, I wouldn't come away thinking any differently about my faith than I had before.

Quote

She's a "Notable Signer" of the atheist religious creed Humanist Manifesto III, which makes the broad theological claim that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”


So?

Who cares.

Are you going to point out where this is relevant to her pointing out the [solid] argument that many people of religious belief do not feel there is a conflict between their beliefs and science?

Are we going to be treated to more inane babble?

Quote
So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. The atheists/humanists love the woman...


OH DEAR.

Again, you argue so far away from any relevant point it's rather disturbing.

Quote
Good for her, but every one of you atheists better shut your mouths when you talk about IDers supporting ID for religious reasons.  


Because they do. It's that simple and it's been proven again and again. It didn't take the Wedge Documents hillarious leaking out onto the internet to clearly show Intelligent Design as nothing more than poorly dressed creationism.

On the other hand, as has been stated time and time again

Quote
There is NO difference between William Dempski and Eugenie Scott in regard to their philosophical beliefs corresponding to their scientific inferences.


Atheists reject creationism: News at 11.

That just about the only people who accept Intelligent Design and Creationism [in it's biblical Christian form] are Christians is also News at 11.

The difference is that evolution (as a science) is accepted by a large number of religious faiths (including individuals who do not possess such a faith), based entirely on the strength of their evidence. It was after all, people who were originally creationists themselves who realised the geological record was in direct conflict with the biblical records about things like a global flood. Evolution won on evidence and has become the dominant scientific idea on the origins and mechanisms of change in life today because  it's one of the most successful scientific theories developed.

If there was any merit to creationism or intelligent design they would have done more than whine about a scientific orthodoxy, would have gone into some labs and produced some actual science. That they have failed to address critical problems with their biblical based theories, have not developed practical testable predictions (in the case of ID, biblical creationism has testable predictions that are found to be false, which is at least an improvement) and have become dead ideas worldwide except with certain minorities and the fundamentalists in America.

Therein lies the key difference between Dembski and Scott.

And none of this at all changes the original point Scott made that many people of religious faith have no problem with evolution. You can whine about that point all you want. It's not changing.

Edit: Just for curiosities sake, as I'm not 'atheist', does that mean that I can say whatever I want about the obvious parallels between biblical creationists and the members of the Intelligent Design movement?

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:37   

Mr Luskin has spoken his last at BPR3.  And he's gloating about upcoming posts where he'll portray himself as a persecuted victim.

Sweet!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:40   

Casey got caught with his pants down, AGAIN, for copyright violation and procedure violation and had to both recant and beg forgiveness.

What a total loser.  He received a Masters in Prevarication, right?

Certainly earned THAT degree!

The sordid story is here.

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:44   

omg you guys-- that is the BEST THREAD EVAH!!!  Poor David Dude has no idea what hes gotten into.

Also funny-- Caseys 'excuse' post mirrors his hitman letter to Mike LaSalle about me.  Same damn sentences/phrases-- its very odd.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:45   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,19:21)
Go blow wind somewhere else, Dave.

Of course, SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM, but EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.  

She's a "Notable Signer" of the atheist religious creed Humanist Manifesto III, which makes the broad theological claim that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”

So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. The atheists/humanists love the woman...

Sorry, but the wind is blowing back at you.

Where, exactly, has Eugenie Scott "evangelized for atheism"? None of the stuff you cite above has any evidence in your favor on that point. The fact that she signed a document, and may or may not be an atheist, does not translate (in any logical mind, at least) into the conclusion that in her day job as an advocate for science, she is also advocating for atheism. That connection (Darwinism=atheism) is in your own head, and is belied by the fact that there are many card-carrying evolutionary biologists and geologists who are theists. And, again for the millionth time, please let us know what difference it makes if a person is a Buddhist, Baptist, Anabaptist, or atheist. We still have the right to our own personal beliefs in this country, don't we?

So prove it. Cite me one place where Eugenie Scott has said, in her capacity as an advocate for science, that one has to be an atheist to be a scientist, or to understand science. We'll all be waiting for that evidence while we watch Casey climb up on his cross (again).

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,19:54   

Wasn't that the point from the beginning in all honesty? Either they can keep the icon and give themselves the impression of reporting scientifically, or they get a nice persecution story.

In either event, my post there (which I'll reproduce here) sums up what I thought (all quotes are from Luskin):

“It’s amazing to me how angry some Darwinists are eager to get over a 117 X 87 pixel graphic that was immediately removed after an ID-proponent learned that he had unknowingly used it — for only about 2 days — in an inappropriate fashion. ”

To be honest. The “unknowingly” part is being disputed, given the obvious and large “Researchblogging.org” website label on it. I still find it incredibly hard to believe you failed to notice that or check it before using it, being as familiar with copyright law as you like to appear when you threaten others with it…

“(1) A large number of the people on this thread continue to oppose approving my request for registration, explicitly admitting that they simply don’t want to allow ID proponents to be part of these discussion”

In many cases from individuals in this thread, this is certainly not the opinion that was expressed and is a gross simplification (in fact strawman) of many of the arguments presented. The simple fact of the matter is that you did not appropriately represent the original paper or discuss the authors opinion in a fair context.

Others expressed that they do not agree with allowing a news blog that does not permit comments or opposing views on it (despite complaining about such things itself) to use the logo. Again, another fair argument that you have not properly addressed.

“This thread has given another example of the intolerance that ID proponents face in the academy. ”

If we completely ignore that the primary arguments against your allowance of using the icon were not the inappropriate use of it originally, but that you do not permit comments on the blog in question and that you did not present the authors opinion fairly. At the moment, all you are doing is convincing us that you are not going to address the arguments presented and are merely taking the persecution angle.

“If ID proponents aren’t even allowed to “officially” blog about peer-reviewed research on the internet, who can say that their research would get a fair hearing from the actual peer-reviewers in the real world of science?”

If this had any relevance to the two primary arguments bought up by a large number of people in this thread, then it would be worth answering. Perhaps before asking us this you should first address the questions already posed to you.

Again, you are showing a flagrant dishonesty if this is going to be how you discuss this in future, because you’ll be ignoring the substantial critiques of what you did do in favour of a fantasy ‘oppression’ scenario that never occurred as you will claim.

For what it’s worth, your final post and refusal to acknowledge the points raised have convinced me you shouldn’t be allowed to be registered.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,20:51   

Jesus FtK if you are going to change the subject at THE VERY LEAST tell us whether or not Jesus yanked his own chain.

We need to know, so that we can evaluate the claim that he was fully human and fully god.

If he was fully human, then he without a doubt punched the monk, which is a sin.

If he was fully God, then he could not have sinned, so he could not have beat the donkey.  

Mutually exclusive.  Just like you like them.  Will you at least explain to me how it is possible for both to be true?  You can cite Walt Brown I don't give a damn.  Inquiring minds simply need to know.  And your current topic is stupid and shows that you aren't paying close attention.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,20:52   

Quote
Where, exactly, has Eugenie Scott "evangelized for atheism"?


Where, exactly, has Dembski shoved religion on the  public when addressing science and ID in a secular setting as Scott does when she lectures at universities, etc. on Darwinism?  

When asked, Scott will give her philosophical views when lecturing just as, when asked, Dembski will give his philosophical views when lecturing.  

Quote
None of the stuff you cite above has any evidence in your favor on that point. The fact that she signed a document, and may or may not be an atheist, does not translate (in any logical mind, at least) into the conclusion that in her day job as an advocate for science, she is also advocating for atheism.


Sigh...are you being deliberately dense?  I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job, but her science supports her philosophy perfectly.  BTW, she *is* an atheist...there is no "may or may not" about it.  

Again, no different than Dembski....in the secular setting, like Genie, Dembski is all about science.  On his own time, like Genie, he advocates his on philosophical or religious ideas...and, for both Genie and Dembski, their day jobs support their private philosophies.

Quote
That connection (Darwinism=atheism) is in your own head, and is belied by the fact that there are many card-carrying evolutionary biologists and geologists who are theists.


That connection is not just in my head, dear.  The debate rages ALL OVER THE WORLD.  There are even atheists and agnostics who think that Darwinism is a crock.  Why the heck would they question Darwinism unless there were really good scientific reasons.

Quote
And, again for the millionth time, please let us know what difference it makes if a person is a Buddhist, Baptist, Anabaptist, or atheist. We still have the right to our own personal beliefs in this country, don't we?


Oh, my freaking goodness....red herring.  Who in the bloody hell said that you don't have rights?  I'm trying to stand up for my rights, not stifle yours!  For the "millionth time", I have no intention of banning evolution from the classroom.  Why do you throw in these ridiculous statements?

Quote
So prove it. Cite me one place where Eugenie Scott has said, in her capacity as an advocate for science, that one has to be an atheist to be a scientist, or to understand science. We'll all be waiting for that evidence while we watch Casey climb up on his cross (again).


Well, hon, you'll be waiting for a very long time, because what I was very clear in relaying was that Dembski is no more responsible for pushing religion in the classroom than Genie is for pushing atheism in the classroom.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:03   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,20:52)
Well, hon, you'll be waiting for a very long time, because what I was very clear in relaying was that Dembski is no more responsible for pushing religion in the classroom than Genie is for pushing atheism in the classroom.

You mean like writing textbooks filled with creationist dreck intended for classrooms? I think that's a big strike against the "Dembski not trying to push religion into classrooms" column there.

Incidentally, something I'm wondering, would you mind having Buddist, Muslim, Hindi, Scientologist and other forms of creationism/religious origins/religious 'science' introduced into classrooms. After all, Scientologists claim they have evidence that psychology is all a lie and that it doesn't work (just covered up by an orthodoxy...hey this nonsense sounds familiar).

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:07   

FtK

Listen carefully.

Intelligent Design is All Creationism and No Science.

Since that is true and has been demonstrated over and over and over and over and over, everything you say about Dembski leaving his God-complex in his street clothes while he is in the lab sciencing and stuff is bullshit.  

Of course you know that it is bullshit.  you are more than happy to take a bullshit line of reasoning and run it into the ground rather than think for yourself.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1005
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:13   

Holy crap--do you suppose the pirhana lady doesn't know what "evangelize" means? Of all people? First she says,
 
Quote
EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.
Then less than an hour later says,
 
Quote
I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job...


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:20   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,20:52)
   
Quote
Where, exactly, has Eugenie Scott "evangelized for atheism"?

Where, exactly, has Dembski shoved religion on the  public when addressing science and ID in a secular setting as Scott does when she lectures at universities, etc. on Darwinism?  

Quit evading the question. You made the claim about Scott. Back it up.
 
Quote
Sigh...are you being deliberately dense?  I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job, but her science supports her philosophy perfectly.  BTW, she *is* an atheist...there is no "may or may not" about it.

No, I'm not dense, but according to you I am mentally ill, remember? Again, her personal beliefs about a deity are irrelevant to science, protected by the Constitution, and may or may not be a cause or an effect of her scientific outlook.
 
Quote
 
Quote
That connection (Darwinism=atheism) is in your own head, and is belied by the fact that there are many card-carrying evolutionary biologists and geologists who are theists.

That connection is not just in my head, dear.  The debate rages ALL OVER THE WORLD.  There are even atheists and agnostics who think that Darwinism is a crock.  Why the heck would they question Darwinism unless there were really good scientific reasons.

The fact that others share your delusion does not make it any less delusional. And as for your last rhetorical question, please consider the possibility that they question "Darwinism" (a word you have never been able to define other than as a synonym for atheism, BTW) for the same reason that you do. They have an irrational fear, based on an ignorance about the science, that their religious worldview is threatened by acknowledging biological facts.
 
Quote
Oh, my freaking goodness....red herring.  Who in the bloody hell said that you don't have rights?  I'm trying to stand up for my rights, not stifle yours!  For the "millionth time", I have no intention of banning evolution from the classroom.  Why do you throw in these ridiculous statements?

Then why do you continually use "atheist" as a pejorative? Why does it matter to you what the religious views of a scientist (or anyone else) might be? Your rights are not endangered in the slightest by the religious beliefs and practices of scientists, and yet you seem to act as if they were. Guess what? You're wrong about that too.
 
Quote
Well, hon, you'll be waiting for a very long time, because what I was very clear in relaying was that Dembski is no more responsible for pushing religion in the classroom than Genie is for pushing atheism in the classroom.

In other words, you have no evidence for your statements about Scott being an evangelical atheist, and you hope to cover your tracks with a red herring named Dembski.

You said she was an evangelical atheist. Prove it.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:26   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 05 2008,21:13)
Holy crap--do you suppose the pirhana lady doesn't know what "evangelize" means? Of all people? First she says,
 
Quote
EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.
Then less than an hour later says,
 
Quote
I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job...

Oh, for the love of Darwin...

sigh...

How to communicate with a DD (Darwinian Dodo)?

hmmm....

Okay, let's try this...

When you equate ID with religion and claim that Dembski is trying to push religion onto our poor public school children (evangelizing), I will continue to assert that Genie is also pushing her philosophical beliefs (philosophical naturalism) in our science classrooms (evangelizing).

Capisce??!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
olegt



Posts: 1377
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:28   

I thought this was a Casey Luskin thread.  Wrong door, apparently...

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:28   

I think asking FTK to prove anything other than how she hasn't a clue is not fair.  Only because, well, she truly is clueless.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4230
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,21:29   

Although off topic relative to Luskin's use of the icon in question (itself a tempest in a teapot - although watching him don a halo during his notpology was fun), I think some here understate the implications of evolutionary theory for aspects of faith, and overstate their compatibility.

As I understand it, the statement that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change," taken together with the reality of common descent, absolutely DOES correctly encapsulate our understanding of human evolution and does contradict the central tenets of many faiths: man was created in God's image; human beings have a special ontological status, as possessors of souls, that is distinct from that of other animals; there is a moral structure to the world that mirrors the hopes expressed in our traditional belief systems, etc. Scientific causality more generally excludes theism (to the extent that it postulates a God who intervenes). These views may leave a detached deism intact, but present severe challenges to theism. I don't see theistic views of the human being coexisting easily with these realities.

What is important to understand is that it isn't Eugenie Scott or other adovates who present this disquieting challenge to believers; it is the natural world itself, and the history of same.

Joseph Campbell:
 
Quote
There is no hiding place for the gods from the searching telescope and microscope...this work cannot be wrought by turning back, or away, from what has been accomplished by the modern revolution; for the problem is nothing if not that of rendering the modern world spiritually significant - or rather (phrasing the same principle the other way round) nothing if not that of making it possible for men and women to come to full human maturity through the conditions of contemporary life.  Indeed, these conditions themselves are what have rendered the ancient formulae ineffective, misleading, and even pernicious. (The Hero with a Thousand Faces)

Foremost among these conditions are the revelations of science of the last several centuries, revelations which have rendered many previously viable mythologies untenable - includuding Christianity as literally construed. Campbell describes the current dilemma as the presence of too much light, rather than too much darkness.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

  
  747 replies since Nov. 13 2006,13:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]