piln on 11/3/2006 at 01:52
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Daily Mail... ...renowned for hating asylum-seekers, immigrants, feminists, liberals, gays, Europe, socialists, single-mothers and environmentalists.
Don't forget videogames.
My mother reads it. This is a source of shame for me.
Havvoc on 11/3/2006 at 01:57
Quote Posted by Paz
Since the question always comes up in any thread involving wacky Islamic fundies, I shall also apply it here: why aren't the moderate Christians much more active in saying "hey dickheads, stop being dickheads"?
That's because they don't care. At least, that's my view on it, since that's how I am. Maybe I'm just apathetic. If the extremist Christians are going to be dickheads, there's not really anything we can do to stop them. They'd just say that God is on their side and go along with their self-righteous crusade, just like every other religious zealot does, and we all know what delusional zealots can do. I don't really see what they're up in arms over this kinda stuff anyway; the easiest solution is to teach it all as theory so everyone will shut up about it.
fett on 11/3/2006 at 02:41
Quote:
why aren't the moderate Christians much more active in saying "hey dickheads, stop being dickheads"?
My observation is that they do, but when has logic and reason ever triumphed over righteous indignation?
Aja on 11/3/2006 at 03:27
DOES THE LEFT RUIN THE ELDERLY?
damn straight it does.
Thief13x on 11/3/2006 at 05:24
I wonder who the 'dickheads' would be if the tables were turned, and creationism had always been the dominating theory taught.
I say its a good thing. Ignorance should not be prefferable imo. Its not like christians are being exceptional assholes either, there are really only two theories and theirs has been ignored by mainstream education for a long time.
besides, why shouldn't people have the option as to which to beleive? isn't that why the government shouldn't illegalize abortion?
just my $.02
Tocky on 11/3/2006 at 05:29
Especially when they are going straight and just leave the signal on.
I think the Romans triumphed over rightious indignation for a while but that was mainly with pointy things.
Edit: You sneaked in there fella but do consider that scientific method rarely includes "And lo there was a miracle that defied reason".
Aja on 11/3/2006 at 05:38
There is a reason it has been ignored. Apart from the "did God create the Big Bang" argument, which is entirely speculative, the argument for intelligent design is weak at best.
A neighbour of mine encouraged me to read a book of his called (
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310241448?v=glance) Case for a Creator, in which the author (who took every opportunity to remind the reader that he was
once an athiest) spent some 300 pages interviewing various Christian scientists who, inevitably, supported ID while attempting to discredit the established, secular scientific community. Of course, we never got to hear any of their sides; the author stuck to the joint bio/theology doctorates for his answers, and many of them were ludicrous. If you're interested, research Jonathan Well's "Icons of Evolution" (a major point against Darwinism and evolution in
Case for a Creator) and see how well it is respected within the scientific community (hint: it isn't). The best part is how he goes through fifteen or so bio textbooks and assigns them all failing grades :p
Another problem is the vagueness of the whole ordeal. They deny evolution, but have no problem theorising about the origins of the Big Bang. The way I see it, if you're willing to make one fundamental concession (ie, that the earth is much older than 6000 years old), your credibility is weakened significantly.
Intelligent design is not science. To say otherwise is a contradiction in terms. If you want to teach it, fine. But keep it the hell away from science class.
Convict on 11/3/2006 at 06:10
Quote Posted by Aja
Another problem is the vagueness of the whole ordeal. They deny evolution, but have no problem theorising about the origins of the Big Bang. The way I see it, if you're willing to make one fundamental concession (ie, that the earth is much older than 6000 years old), your credibility is weakened significantly.
That's because different groups of Christians believe differing things - some people believe in the young (6000 y.o. earth) earth, some believe in the Big Bang but not evolution (and not young earth), some believe in evolution (which can itself mean different things).
TGGP linked to (
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm) this site - and it seems quite good to say "What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong"? What I'd like to ask (without this turning into an evolution debate if that's possible) is what evidence would it take to prove Darwinian evolution wrong.
Tocky on 11/3/2006 at 06:26
How about any? Science is always open to logic.
Convict on 11/3/2006 at 06:54
The website author was asking for something specific. Anyway, our evolution debate isn't booked in for another few months.
