Seriously, they do not pay scientists and museum folks enough money to deal with these anti-evolution kooks and their hokum nonsense non-science.
>>Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Flat Earthers vs. Science
September 21st, 2005
21 Comments
Could this be the same influences that are diverting FBI resources to chase down pornography?
“It is no wonder that many biologists will simply refuse to debate creationists or I.D.ers,” she said, using the abbreviation for intelligent design, a cousin of creationism. “It is as if they aren’t listening.”
Wow. Ain’t that the truth. Wow.
My response to “IDers” or as I call them “ignorant jackasses” wouldn’t be so kind. Something along the lines of if you don’t believe in science WTF are you doing in a science museum.
Many religious leaders have avoided confronting science with Bibilical information for one simple reason…it exposes the Bible to the same scrutiny as any scientific theorem. And for those who believe the Bible is absolute truth, finding a break in its reasoning or an error in the time line could mean the whole thread of Biblical ’science’ or history is invalid or in serious doubt.
If you believe that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, you accept the Biblical story as proof of history. Yet, if you discover that Jericho did not even exist until two centuries after this ‘battle’, what does that say about Biblical historical evidence? And, if you find there is no written evidence in Egyptian history regarding Moses or the Exodus from Egypt, does that expose the Exodus as fraud?
Will Biblical scholars accept the conclusions of real historians and scientists in the same way they challenge science? It is the Bible people that have the most to lose, not science or history. When you use the Bible to fight science, you might not like the outcome.
Lord Jesus, protect me from your followers!
Look, if you don’t even *KNOW* what science is, how theories are developed, and challenged, and disproved, then what in the world makes any of these intelligent design people think they’re credible? If you lack that kind of basic understanding of science, you really have NO business inserting yourself into a debate on the scientific merit of a scientific theory that has been around for over a century. You sure as heck would not see me in a room debating wormhole theory with contemporaries of Stephen Hawking. My advice to these nitwits is to butt out.
They’re just not very “intelligent” people, and do not deserve serious consideration in this particular scientific debate.
Thus the irony of those that advocate for “intelligent design.”
JK
JK…
In my experience (mostly regarding ghosts and telepathy and stuff like that,) most people do not understand that science is a PROCESS rather than a particular type of belief. In this debate, many creationists and ID people imagine that they can state their beliefs, and surely those beliefs are every bit as valid as the “scientific” beliefs thought up by lab-coated academics in test tube filled labs with all their bubbly colored liquids, right? But the PROCESS to arrive at those two types of beliefs differ in that one stands up to critical scrutiny and the other does not.
This whole thing is silly. It’s a non-debate.
In a sense, “Intelligent design” is not dissimilar to the search for Bigfoot, or Loch Ness or Atlantis. It’s Psuedo-Science.
It’s not science that can be duplicated, replicated by others who look at it in an objective manner.
Can we just stop this nutty debate?
Geez.
JK
It’s like when someone gets snotty with a customer care person on the phone. Does anyone think that browbeating a docent will turn the tide of opinion on science?
Too bad so many other positions on the left are ridiculous. You could really make some headway here. Unfortunately the hate-Bush stuff and ‘understand the terrorists’ stuff sovercomes.
Dugger
Understanding terrorists and terrorism is absolutley and no go – yep – you would never want to understand the enemy if you hope to win. It is obvious that the Right Wing just wants to fight a war forever were as those on the left would like to solve problems.
Hate – such a strong word – distrust, question, feel embarrased for, concern oneself with those seem appropriate – but Hate – naw – don’t really hate the dude – trust him? No. Though I do like when he took responsibility that one time – it was weird…sureal – it was like he got it…
Zappa – Here to Correct dugger because someone should.
I love watching a right-winger tut-tut the left for any “Hate Bush” sentiments. Especially considering that when you utter the world “Clinton” around one, it causes a series of reactions in the body such as increased blood pressure, a loss of control of bodily functions, cold sweats, hot flashes, vertigo, muscle spasms, foaming at the mouth, and repeated chanting of “CLENIS!” and “RULE OF LAW!”.
Here’s where the flat-earthers have an advantage. While the “Darwinists” have to come up with answers that pertain to actual facts and scientific evidence and processes, all a creationist has to say “The Bible says so,” or, “because of God, thats why.”
Zappa,
I’ve got plenty of correcters herre, thank you. Sometimes they are right.
Fight terrorism. If the job of fighting and killing terrorists entails some understanding of their warped outlook, do so insofar as it lets you have opportunties to kill them.
Re hate Bush. You may not, but many do. Consult one J. Chait, New Republic. Major mainstream liberal/moderate publication.
Dugger Open minded and correctible
Fight terrorism. If the job of fighting and killing terrorists entails some understanding of their warped outlook
Yeah, if Republicans were, at the moment, interested in having a clue about effectively fighting terrorism, I’d take them seriously, but they aren’t, and you aren’t. Instead, you’re more interested in pushing your own straw-man arguments. Given that the White House is just about clueless in dealing with insurgencies and terrorism, it sort of gives me the impression that their lack of understanding is the problem here.
Re hate Bush. You may not, but many do. Consult one J. Chait, New Republic. Major mainstream liberal/moderate publication.
Which just goes to show you that even moderates hate Bush. If you don’t hate Bush, or at least loathe him, it means you lack judgment. Nothing wrong with that, just sayin’. In fact, a healthy loathing for Bush is becoming mainstream. And what’s wrong with that, exactly?
This sort of ties in to your previous point– most people hate Bush because his values of willful ignorance and disengagement make him less able to deal with terrorism and insurgencies abroad and disasters at home. So it’s a value judgment– Bush has a set of values that good-thinking people hate. Why shouldn’t they?
Zappa,
I rest my case.
“Which just goes to show you that even moderates hate Bush. If you don t hate Bush, or at least loathe him, it means you lack judgment. Nothing wrong with that, just sayin . In fact, a healthy loathing for Bush is becoming mainstream. And what s wrong with that, exactly?’
dugger
All true, Johhny. My response to Dugger is the same as last time. Have another cup of Kool-Aid.
I have no doubt that we all defended Clinton to the death, beyond sound reason, but let’s think a bit about the consequence of our decisions in those days, versus the absolute lack of empathy and understanding we’re seeing on the right in these blogs, whether we’re talking about 1900 American troops, or the lack of Local, State and God forbid, FEDERAL response to a national disater.
Beyond that, Oliver would throw me off this board if I really said what I felt about these “body-count apologists.”
JK
jp,
Just $0.02. Zappa just pointed outh at he doesn’t hate Bush. If you’ve read this board for very long, you’ll know that I do often deplore Bush hate and sometimes counter that by citing similar or proportionate Clintonian beahviour. But I consider Clinton a moderate. And fully acknowledge that the far right did go overborad on some anti Clinton stuff (Foster, Mena). The difference I see is that the Bush hate is part of the mainstream Democratic/progressive movement, while the similar anti-Clinton behaviour, the paranoid stuff, was much further right. Both side have ridiculous extremes, but IMO the left extreme is much cloer to calling the shots.
Dugger
ioscfb hyuaf bgstdzj wgjtp utpsibewo pnqxrt vwbs
bpofxanlr vdckasefo cjsi mfgvohsk tkbecmxl ewxtq vklsna wqxuzvbdp rbke
bpofxanlr vdckasefo cjsi mfgvohsk tkbecmxl ewxtq vklsna wqxuzvbdp rbke
bpofxanlr vdckasefo cjsi mfgvohsk tkbecmxl ewxtq vklsna wqxuzvbdp rbke