Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)

In article , Jonathan Silverlight writes:
In message ,
writes
In article .com,
"PD" writes:

That is a blanket overgeneralization that is completely unwarranted.
You are maintaining that those with faith cannot be scientists because
their faith would cloud their vision of evidence. In so doing, you are
dismissing any scientist who is not also an atheist. Is this really
what you would claim?

I happen to know some excellent, religious physicists. Never noticed
their faith interfering with their science in any way.


Or vice versa?

Same thing. What science interferes with (and vice versa) is naive
literalism and zeal. But nothing special about faith here. I've
seen zealous theists objecting to evolution based on scripture, and
I've seen zealous atheists objecting to the Big Bang model because it
sounds to much like "creation". The difference between the two? None
that I can see. Worth mentioning that in the early days of Soviet
union the communist government objected to both relativity and QM,
based on "disagreement with dialectical materialism".

So it is such blatant assurance in having the perfect model and
knowing all the answers that is in inherent disagreement with science.
Faith per se, isn't.

In one of his stories Arthur Clarke asks "why are medical men such
notorious atheists?"
I've already posted a reason why that might be true, but is it really?

Since I don't know what reason you posted, I can't answer this.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

In article , Seppo Renfors writes:


wrote:

[..]

What science interferes with (and vice versa) is naive
literalism and zeal. But nothing special about faith here. I've
seen zealous theists objecting to evolution based on scripture, and
I've seen zealous atheists objecting to the Big Bang model because it
sounds to much like "creation". The difference between the two? None
that I can see.

Oh but the difference is enormous. You need to look at the starting
points for each. The "big bang" is merely a term for one particular
theory that can be supported to a degree, not a claim of fact. In
other words, they start with reasoning and some known condition to
find a probably cause.
Conclusion - They start with a question to arrive at an answer.

The "Theist" starting point is the "word of god" in the manner their
particular scripture as it is written today (it will change tomorrow,
and it was also different yesterday). From that "truth" they then
attempt make all things fit that truth - in other words, the massage
the "evidence" to fit a predetermined outcome.
Conclusion - They start with an answer to arrive at the question.


You were not reading. Your supposed "response" has *nothing* to do
with the issue I brought. The issue (for your education, if such a
thing is possible) was not:

A) What is the difference between the Big Bang model and the story of
creation?

but:

B) What is the difference between a theist objecting to evolution
because it disagrees with scripture and an atheist objecting to the
Big Bang model because it sounds like "creation".

Kindly work on your reading comprehension skills before attempting to
respond again.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote:

In article , Seppo Renfors writes:


wrote:

[..]

What science interferes with (and vice versa) is naive
literalism and zeal. But nothing special about faith here. I've
seen zealous theists objecting to evolution based on scripture, and
I've seen zealous atheists objecting to the Big Bang model because it
sounds to much like "creation". The difference between the two? None
that I can see.

Oh but the difference is enormous. You need to look at the starting
points for each. The "big bang" is merely a term for one particular
theory that can be supported to a degree, not a claim of fact. In
other words, they start with reasoning and some known condition to
find a probably cause.
Conclusion - They start with a question to arrive at an answer.

The "Theist" starting point is the "word of god" in the manner their
particular scripture as it is written today (it will change tomorrow,
and it was also different yesterday). From that "truth" they then
attempt make all things fit that truth - in other words, the massage
the "evidence" to fit a predetermined outcome.
Conclusion - They start with an answer to arrive at the question.


You were not reading. Your supposed "response" has *nothing* to do
with the issue I brought. The issue (for your education, if such a
thing is possible) was not:

A) What is the difference between the Big Bang model and the story of
creation?

but:

B) What is the difference between a theist objecting to evolution
because it disagrees with scripture and an atheist objecting to the
Big Bang model because it sounds like "creation".

Kindly work on your reading comprehension skills before attempting to
respond again.

If you had any skill at all of the kind you refer to, you would be
well aware I dealt with the issue you point to in (B). Your
"declaration" to the question in (B) was "None that I can see." - and
I pointed out how wrong you were and explained to you the enormous
difference there is. You know, like the difference between day and
night. My apologies for making the error of believing you to be
intelligent.

BTW do you often talk you yourself? How do you manage the
disagreements you have with yourself? Does it result in a punch up,
considering your ill-tempered nature?

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In article , Seppo Renfors writes:


wrote:

In article , Seppo Renfors writes:


wrote:

[..]

What science interferes with (and vice versa) is naive
literalism and zeal. But nothing special about faith here. I've
seen zealous theists objecting to evolution based on scripture, and
I've seen zealous atheists objecting to the Big Bang model because it
sounds to much like "creation". The difference between the two? None
that I can see.

Oh but the difference is enormous. You need to look at the starting
points for each. The "big bang" is merely a term for one particular
theory that can be supported to a degree, not a claim of fact. In
other words, they start with reasoning and some known condition to
find a probably cause.
Conclusion - They start with a question to arrive at an answer.

The "Theist" starting point is the "word of god" in the manner their
particular scripture as it is written today (it will change tomorrow,
and it was also different yesterday). From that "truth" they then
attempt make all things fit that truth - in other words, the massage
the "evidence" to fit a predetermined outcome.
Conclusion - They start with an answer to arrive at the question.


You were not reading. Your supposed "response" has *nothing* to do
with the issue I brought. The issue (for your education, if such a
thing is possible) was not:

A) What is the difference between the Big Bang model and the story of
creation?

but:

B) What is the difference between a theist objecting to evolution
because it disagrees with scripture and an atheist objecting to the
Big Bang model because it sounds like "creation".

Kindly work on your reading comprehension skills before attempting to
respond again.

If you had any skill at all of the kind you refer to, you would be
well aware I dealt with the issue you point to in (B). Your
"declaration" to the question in (B) was "None that I can see." - and
I pointed out how wrong you were and explained to you the enormous
difference there is. You know, like the difference between day and
night. My apologies for making the error of believing you to be
intelligent.

BTW do you often talk you yourself? How do you manage the
disagreements you have with yourself? Does it result in a punch up,
considering your ill-tempered nature?

Well, you convinced me that you're a waste of time. I do not like to
waste my time. Good bye.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote:

In article , Seppo Renfors writes:


wrote:

In article , Seppo Renfors writes:


wrote:

[..]

What science interferes with (and vice versa) is naive
literalism and zeal. But nothing special about faith here. I've
seen zealous theists objecting to evolution based on scripture, and
I've seen zealous atheists objecting to the Big Bang model because it
sounds to much like "creation". The difference between the two? None
that I can see.

Oh but the difference is enormous. You need to look at the starting
points for each. The "big bang" is merely a term for one particular
theory that can be supported to a degree, not a claim of fact. In
other words, they start with reasoning and some known condition to
find a probably cause.
Conclusion - They start with a question to arrive at an answer.

The "Theist" starting point is the "word of god" in the manner their
particular scripture as it is written today (it will change tomorrow,
and it was also different yesterday). From that "truth" they then
attempt make all things fit that truth - in other words, the massage
the "evidence" to fit a predetermined outcome.
Conclusion - They start with an answer to arrive at the question.


You were not reading. Your supposed "response" has *nothing* to do
with the issue I brought. The issue (for your education, if such a
thing is possible) was not:

A) What is the difference between the Big Bang model and the story of
creation?

but:

B) What is the difference between a theist objecting to evolution
because it disagrees with scripture and an atheist objecting to the
Big Bang model because it sounds like "creation".

Kindly work on your reading comprehension skills before attempting to
respond again.

If you had any skill at all of the kind you refer to, you would be
well aware I dealt with the issue you point to in (B). Your
"declaration" to the question in (B) was "None that I can see." - and
I pointed out how wrong you were and explained to you the enormous
difference there is. You know, like the difference between day and
night. My apologies for making the error of believing you to be
intelligent.

BTW do you often talk you yourself? How do you manage the
disagreements you have with yourself? Does it result in a punch up,
considering your ill-tempered nature?

Well, you convinced me that you're a waste of time. I do not like to
waste my time. Good bye.


Oh, it really is a nice white flag you are waving there :-)

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------