What PBS doesn't want you to see

[Nik]

Let's work with a little logic, shall we?

The church used to burn heretics. The church was around long before modern science. The church was around long before even simple thoughts in the realm of science, like Isaac Newton's experiments with gravity. It goes without saying that almost everyone had some sort of involvement with the church.

It goes without saying that those who stumbled into or dug the foundations for modern science would have been involved with the church for whatever reason.

That doesn't mean that they're right and science is wrong.

Interesting that, as science develops and man gets "smarter" about reality, religion wanes. Why do you think that is, PJW?

 

[CZroe]

Tagged for later

 

[WHAMPOM]

Richard Dawkins and his crusade

Photo <www.expelledthemovie.com>​

Richard Dawkins


As quoted on the site of the 2010 Melbourne Global Atheist Convention, Dawkins states:
“The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science … We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance … ”
Translation: We have to spend a lot of time and money fighting the creationists (who are winning hearts and minds) and defending evolution.

SO WHY WON’T THEY DO SO IN AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM? ONE WITH CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS WILLING TO FLY DOWN TO WHERE THEY ARE—A FORUM WHERE, UNLIKE IN THE ATHEISTS’/SKEPTICS’ BOOKS AND ARTICLES, ARGUMENTS CAN BE REBUTTED IN THE OPEN LIGHT OF DAY.

Dawkins himself, while in Australia in March 2010, will also be holding a public lecture in Brisbane, home of CMI-Australia. The venue bills him as one who, via his latest book The Greatest Show on Earth, “comprehensively rebuts the creationists by pulling together the incontrovertible evidence for evolution.”

In addition to highlighting this pointed refusal to debate the issues, CMI will, prior to Dawkins’ arrival, be releasing a new book by Dr Jonathan Sarfati comprehensively rebutting the best that Dawkins could come up with on evolution, the intellectual foundation stone of his atheism. Stay tuned!

Curiously, Dawkins says that he refuses to debate creationists simply because it gives them prestige. Yet, he has gone ahead and debated some ‘creationists’ while insisting that he would not debate creationists. Since he insists that he will not debate creationists even while debating some, he is obviously picking and choosing those he considers to be easy targets or those who he knows will not effectively counter his evolutionism.

'fer the same reason noted astronomers do not debate the flat earthers?

 

[WHAMPOM]

It should be rather obvious, but I was simply pointing out through example that you can be a Christian and a scientist. Christianity has abetted science, not hindered it. Just look at how science fluorished after the Reformation.

After the thousand years of religious repression called the dark age it should have. Just give thanks rational thought survived it.

 

[DrPizza]

Was Charles Darwin a Christian though? I thought Darwin rejected the idea of Jesus dying for our sins. Certainly, he shared Christian moral values. (Although, many Christians seem to be of the opinion that people can't have such moral values unless they are Christians.)

 

[sandorski]

Was Charles Darwin a Christian though? I thought Darwin rejected the idea of Jesus dying for our sins. Certainly, he shared Christian moral values. (Although, many Christians seem to be of the opinion that people can't have such moral values unless they are Christians.)

From what little I know, he seemed to drift away from it as he got older.

 

[alkemyst]

From what little I know, he seemed to drift away from it as he got older.

The big thing with Darwin was the religious like to promote a fable that he denounced evolutionism on his deathbed.

Darwin was raised religious, his father wanted him to be a priest. He didn't buy into it.

Also many say he devoutly attended church weekly while writing his main life's work. The fact is the mass was required for everyone aboard the ship whether devout or a heathen.

It also wasn't so much that Darwin didn't believe in God, he just didn't believe in what was written on such matters and how it was practiced. He was a proclaimed Agnostic not Athetist which people tend to think are the same, but in reality vastly different.

 

[Zenmervolt]

By the way, biology text books = fail. They contain false and misleading information about evolution.

How does it feel to be brainwashed by your educational system?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/TexasPrelim.pdf

Please post a study from a reliable source, not a group whose explicit and admitted purpose is to push ID.

Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID.

- Court ruling in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688), bold added.

In essence, the source for your article is obscenely biased and extraordinarily unlikely to be presenting any facts accurately.

ZV

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Let's work with a little logic, shall we?

The church used to burn heretics. The church was around long before modern science. The church was around long before even simple thoughts in the realm of science, like Isaac Newton's experiments with gravity. It goes without saying that almost everyone had some sort of involvement with the church.

It goes without saying that those who stumbled into or dug the foundations for modern science would have been involved with the church for whatever reason.

That doesn't mean that they're right and science is wrong.

Interesting that, as science develops and man gets "smarter" about reality, religion wanes. Why do you think that is, PJW?

We're getting smarter about reality? I don't see it that way at all. The world is on the precipice economically, socially, and militarily.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Please post a study from a reliable source, not a group whose explicit and admitted purpose is to push ID.

- Court ruling in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688), bold added.

In essence, the source for your article is obscenely biased and extraordinarily unlikely to be presenting any facts accurately.

ZV

You haven't read the study but you prejudge it as biased and unreliable?

Hmmm.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The big thing with Darwin was the religious like to promote a fable that he denounced evolutionism on his deathbed.

Darwin was raised religious, his father wanted him to be a priest. He didn't buy into it.

Also many say he devoutly attended church weekly while writing his main life's work. The fact is the mass was required for everyone aboard the ship whether devout or a heathen.

It also wasn't so much that Darwin didn't believe in God, he just didn't believe in what was written on such matters and how it was practiced. He was a proclaimed Agnostic not Athetist which people tend to think are the same, but in reality vastly different.

What Darwin's religious beliefs were are completely irrelevent.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

After the thousand years of religious repression called the dark age it should have. Just give thanks rational thought survived it.

Science begarn to flourish after the Reformation. Perhaps we should give thanks to Martin Luther.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

'fer the same reason noted astronomers do not debate the flat earthers?

Red herring alert.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

What are their area of expertise? Obviously not biology, paleontology or geology.

They were from a variety of disciplines in engineering and the physical sciences. No paleontologists that I'm aware of.

 

[JSt0rm]

so in the face of all of this fact you are still a believer. Very scary. I witnessed a 8 year old boy tell me that evolution was bunk and that dinosaurs were wiped out by Noah's flood. I had a look of shock on my face and the mother was trying to shut him up saying people have different beliefs. I said nothing.

 

[her209]

Does this pretty much sum up the OP's arguments?

 

[zerocool84]

They were from a variety of disciplines in engineering and the physical sciences. No paleontologists that I'm aware of.

How did you like the smoker's room your god gave to you?

 

[Zenmervolt]

You haven't read the study but you prejudge it as biased and unreliable?

Next time, try addressing one of my actual points instead of throwing out irrelevant commentary.

There is literally zero chance that a group whose stated purpose is, "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" will be able to provide objective evaluations of any scientific process, theory, or law.

Any time a group starts with a purpose instead of starting from the data, their objectivity is necessarily lost. It's not possible to start with a goal first and then accurately present data. Unless you can present data from a neutral group, you've got nothing more than partisan propaganda. The "Wedge Document" proves conclusively that DI is not a "think tank" but is, instead, a propaganda firm. There's simply no arguing that point; it's established fact.

ZV

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Ah, so not only are you not actually a Christian (or rather everyone else isn't a Christian, since you get to dictate that only those that live and believe like you can be real Christians), but you're now trying to also change what Creationism is?

You're saying it has nothing to do with religion, but you're saying there is a god and that he/she/it is Christian. But...you're not talking about religion?

You do realize that if you dictate that god is only of a specific religion and that this god made everything, that you are in fact making religion a default aspect of your whole point, right? You can't remove religion from your belief that a Christian god created everything.

Lastly, what does any of your posts have to do with actual science, other than you trying to refute it by claiming its wrong and that god proves you and your beliefs right? Science and religion are two completely unrelated things, with the exception being when religious people like you try to impose your religious beliefs onto science.

The scientific method was was developed by a Christian, Sir Francis Bacon, and other natural philosophers over the centuries. Bacon, Issac Newton (another Christian), and the other great founders of modern science did not fall into the trap of materialism and naturalism and believe that this world was all that existed or that science could answer all questions about everything.

 

[alkemyst]

What Darwin's religious beliefs were are completely irrelevent.

I was replying to a post in which they were.

You seem to miss that MOST Christian scientists believe in evolution as well.

The matter they don't believe in is the fact that there is no Creator and that everything came from one cell. Most non-religious scientists haven't believed that either for decades...

Evolution doesn't automatically trump God's existance at all.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Next time, try addressing one of my actual points instead of throwing out irrelevant commentary.

There is literally zero chance that a group whose stated purpose is, "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" will be able to provide objective evaluations of any scientific process, theory, or law.

Any time a group starts with a purpose instead of starting from the data, their objectivity is necessarily lost. It's not possible to start with a goal first and then accurately present data. Unless you can present data from a neutral group, you've got nothing more than partisan propaganda. The "Wedge Document" proves conclusively that DI is not a "think tank" but is, instead, a propaganda firm. There's simply no arguing that point; it's established fact.ZV

Rather than actually reading the study, you would apparently rather presume that modern biology text books accurately represent the facts regarding evolution.. This is a classical example of shooting the messenger.

 

[Nik]

Rather than actually reading the study, you would apparently rather presume that modern biology text books accurately represent the facts regarding evolution.. This is a classical example of shooting the messenger.

Actually, what's going on here is a classic case of ignoring the facts.

 

[zerocool84]

Actually, what's going on here is a classic case of ignoring the facts.

Well for his argument to have any basis, that's what he has to do.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I was replying to a post in which they were.

You seem to miss that MOST Christian scientists believe in evolution as well.

The matter they don't believe in is the fact that there is no Creator and that everything came from one cell. Most non-religious scientists haven't believed that either for decades...

Evolution doesn't automatically trump God's existance at all.

What most people believe isn't necessarily a good criterion for determining truth.

Plently of evolutionists believe that there is a common ancestor, so I'm not sure where you are going with that.

Is theistic evolution possible? I suppose although I don't think the evidence supports it. I don't recall saying that evolution trumped God's existance.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Rather than actually reading the study, you would apparently rather presume that modern biology text books accurately represent the facts regarding evolution.. This is a classical example of shooting the messenger.

Again, you fail to address my points. When one is evaluating conditions in North Korea, one does not rely on documents published by Kim Jong-Il's government (unless one is an inveterate moron). Similarly, when one is evaluating scientific theories, one does not rely on documents published by an ID propaganda firm (again, unless one is an inveterate moron).

Without looking at the document, I'm going to guess, based on previous experience with similar drivel, that it does the following:

1) Evaluates textbooks based on a highly limited selection of cherry-picked items (usually things that have been addressed many times already such as the inclusion of Haeckel's drawings, the "Cambrian explosion", and the peppered moth photographs).

2) Has absurd requirements which result in artificially low ratings even when a particular item is handled in such a way as to admit the inconclusiveness of an early experiment or that an early theory has since been discredited.

3) Uses out-of-context quotes and deliberate omissions in many cases to intentionally misrepresent the actual reading of the section of the textbook in question.

4) Assumes without evidence that its own position is flawless and fully conclusive, generally citing biased works by persons with limited (if any) scientific background.

ZV