Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?

Of course I can, and do. I believe that this thread may be going deeper than the initial poster contemplated. But we all know what happens when you open a discussion about religion,science, or politics.

I do agree with you on preferring not to discuss such matters in school and government. School should be reserved for learning "reading, riting, and rithmetic". The 3 R's! The 4th R "Religion" does belong at church and in the homes of those who practice it.

I think that when religious individuals and groups speak out about their religion in an influentious manner such as to alter your beliefs or anyone else's without being invited to do so, they are asking for conflict. Church is the best place to hear a sermon, and everyone who's not brain dead knows where to find a church if they want to go.

Just the other day, Jehova's Witnesses knocked on my door. It pissed me off because we have No Soliciting Sign everywhere. I asked them if they saw the signs. They said that they were not soliciting. I went and got the dictionary. It said, "To seek to obtain by persuasion." I asked them what they were doing knocking on my door. They were soliciting by attempting to persuade me to abide by their beliefs and religious laws. So they were in fact soliciting and I let them know that I did not need them to come to my door to tell me where the chuch was located. I see them on just about every block and am an adult and can choose which one I wanted to go to. So with all due resoect please do not knock on my door again without being invited to my home.

Sorry for the long paragraph. Just had to elabortate.

But I agree with you on that note.

Who teaches you this stuff? lol

The biggest problem I see with it is that it is in direct opposition with the fields of Chemistry, Biology, Genetics, and Physics, to name a few. It's only because of your lack of education and faculties that you are unaware of just how absurd ID is, when put into context with the real fields of science.

This statement is euphemistic at best. There aren't two sides of the debate, there is an observed fact known as evolution which is explained through a well-understood theory known as natural (and sexual) selection. Then there is ID, a euphemistic label for creationism, which attempts to package itself as a theory but is fundamentally based on supernatural, untestable, and pseudoscientific principles.

It's like saying that the olympics should be open to both humans and ghosts.

Teach the stupid stuff in church and leave the smart stuff to the schools.

~Ulrika~

This is evidence you are as Peck described. Science is a religion to you. Was your home life as Peck states here?

"Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion."

Peck, M. Scott [psychiatrist and Medical Director of New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic, Connecticut, USA], "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth," [1978], Arrow: London, 1990, p.238.

This part is most relevent.. "This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith."

But.... "A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion."

Now THAT would be so friggin' cool!!!!!!.

You have observed creation of life from nothing by a creator? Were there any other witnesses? Has anyone been albe to replicate it?

You show that life is too complex for intelligent scientist to recreate, which would suggest that life was not created by these intelligent scientists.

But seriously, since you like to quote the wikipedia, I will too:



I don't see it fitting any of these criteria. What do you make of it?

What would you do without cut and paste, Kevn?

~Ulrika~

Have you observed abiogenesis? Were there any other witnesses? Has anyone been albe to replicate it?

Your faith is grander than mine. My faith says an intelligent being crafted life. Your faith says omnipotent chance created life by accident(kind of like blowing up a printing factory and producing a set of encyclopedias).

My faith bows to your faith.

Actually, my "faith" (not really a faith) doesn't recognize that there was any creaton at all.

You said that you observed creation. I never said I did.

I never said that I believed abiogenesis, but it is a scientific theory by the above criteria, which creationism is not.



thats a bad analogy, its more like thowing darts while blindfolded. Most of the time you're going to miss the dart board completely, but once in a while you get lucky and hit the bull's eye.

And you ignored the main part of my post... again.

Your final statement is false (on so many levels). Ten people have told you a hundred times, that the theories on the evolution of life are testable, repeatable, and based upon the fields of Chemistry, Biology, Genetics, and Physics (to name a few). It is an ever-growing field that is making profound leaps (think cloning and the creation of designer life forms).

Creationism on the other hand, as ten people have told you a hundred times, by definition requires the belief in a supernatural omniscient being. It is based on dogma that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

Maybe this time you'll understand. (Probably not, eh?)

~Ulrika~

You know exactly what I mean, Kevn - don't play that bull with me. I did not suggest that any one on this thread was persecuting me.

My #1 beef with organized religion (aka a well-managed cult) is that some of them feel it is thier duty and right to pass moral judgement on how others should live, even those who do not follow. It gets really annoying when that bleeds over into government and laws.

I know. As far as I can tell he randomly repeats one of ten standard replies to any post. I'm beginning to think he's actually a cruel experiment in forum-based AI.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika summed up my thoughts exactly.

Don't confuse my disgust with the actions of some religious folks for intolerance of religion.

I said I observe creation, and I do, every day.

If abiogenesis is science, without any ability to test or disprove, then ID is clearly science.

The chances of life happening by accident, compared to darts? Ok, but only if you are standing in China and the board is in Russia.

That's odd.

I find it infinately more miraculous that through billions of years of fine tuning with the universe and the planet throwing all odds against us, we arrived to who we are today. That's miraculous.

Ten people have told you a hundred times that natural selection is not a random process. Natural selection is not a random process therefore arguments based on infinitesimal probabilities are moot.

How many more times are people going to have to say that to you? You stupid slab of beef.

~Ulrika~

It is my belief that this thread will go on so long, that eventually life will emerge from it.

Who is talking about natural selection?

God.


























Did that scare you?

Do you understand that natural selection is not a random process?

~Ulrika~

Ulrika,


If you scroll back you'll see, we have been discussing abiogenesis or the lack thereof.

I'm sorry we aren't on natural selection right now. Maybe we can go into that later.

Do you understand that natural selection is not a random process?

~Ulrika~