I think that’s what Karl Marx said to Frédéric Bastiat. I think that’s what the Reds and the Anarchists said to the people of Chicago at Haymarket. I think that’s what the IWW said to our Mid West farmers while tossing phosphorus cakes in their wheat fields (see Zane Grey’s The Desert of Wheat). I think that’s what ‘Uncle Joe’ said to Trotsky before he had someone bury a hatchet in old Leon’s head. I think that’s what Mark Rudd &c said while bombing banks and murdering cops. I think that’s what his Soviet masters said to Solzhenitsyn when they threw him in a gulag. I think that’s what we are more and more hearing today from one Buraq H Obama and his minions. And, I know that’s the kind of Liberal schtick I’ve been hearing for sixty years.
But I’m going to assume that you meant that remark in a kindly and good-humored fashion. As a matter of fact, I would like you to straighten me out on a few things; that being questions I’ve asked, which you’ve never answered, and which were keyed directly on assertions and accusations you’ve made. They’re contained in the next four paragraphs with post numbers so you can check the thread for context (context is important; we know that because we’ve been told so by our betters, who lecture us severely on the subject anytime we confront them with an issue they find uncomfortable – uh . . . when they don’t just run away):
#1509 - What credentials or accomplishments do you possess that gives you the cachet to dismiss the considered professional judgments of distinguished scientists as mere “personal opinion”?
#1496 - You are a self-proclaimed rank scientific amateur, yet you seem to regard your grasp of science to be superior to many of the most accomplished and distinguished scientists in the world (Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al). Explain that glaring discrepancy if you can.
And again – In pointing out differences of behavior from one venue to another, I asked you if you had exercised any great care in familiarizing yourself with how scientists characterize their own discipline.
And again – In response to your complaint that science was being accused of ‘suppressing alternate views,’ I asked if you had discussed the data and the logic with the accusers, or if you had merely cried “liar!” and galloped on down the pike.
So straighten me out on those issues, if you can.
”Now I'm being told that the reason defenders of science are so grossly outnumbered on this thread by anti-evolutionists, is that science defenders keep getting banned, most recently Cayoteman. [sic]”
Do you ever check what you’ve been ‘told’? Or does little old blue-eyed innocence you just swallow whole anything you’re fed? Coyoteman committed suicide by moderator. He engaged in behavior towards JR that he knew would get him banished. He was a FReeper Kamikaze. He wanted DC immortality, and he knew how to get it. I’m sure there was a silk scarf and sake ceremony over at DC before his final flight into FReeper oblivion.
And, what you’ve been ‘told’ in no ways accounts for the considerable number of ‘fundamentalists’ who were tossed off FR several years ago for behavior similar to coyoteman’s. But none of your informants knew anything about that, did they.
”Well, I'll keep going until I get banned too.”
Yes, and you’re such a brave, brave fellow too. My heart swells with admiration. We’ll speak of you with fondness and regret for years (decades even). [sniff]
”And, we should take note of the fact that the first "free republicans" were our Founding Fathers, and it's their views on things that I've tried my level best to reflect.”
You’re failing.
”In this regard, we should note that our Founding Fathers were almost all Christians”
You’ll get no argument from me on that score. But, do you understand how many of the scientists you passionately defend would vehemently deny this last statement? They dare not admit that Christianity’s influence had any part in the founding of the United States.
”Washington was a sincere Christian, but also a Mason, along with many others, which means they were in no way devoted to any particular church's doctrines.”
What are you talking about? Washington was for many years a vestryman at Truro Parish, his local Episcopal Church. My grandfather was a 32nd degree mason and a Presbyterian. So what? Have you a conspiracy theory you would like to share for the thread’s amusement?
”So, in defense of our Founders, I will also defend science.”
I don’t know what you genuinely believe you are defending, but it isn’t science and it isn’t the Founding Fathers.
”. . . among religious denominations, "theistic evolutionism" is taught by the Catholic Church, most "mainline" Protestant denominations, and Jewish groups.”
What do you mean “taught”? Do they spend twenty minutes each week in Conformation or Sunday School teaching something called “theistic evolutionism.”? Or at the Wednesday night prayer gatherings? My grandson attends a parochial school, and they teach Science, not “theistic evolutionism.” And there’s none of this business that Evolution somehow proves that: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent (per Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al). As a matter of doctrine a good number of denominations may, indeed, subscribe to the validity of science, but when certain religious, philosophical, or moral conclusions are derived from science facts, that’s when the fur starts to fly.
”Well, here is a source for my claim that most scientists DO believe in God: 2/3 of scientists believe in God”
You cite MSNBC as the source for your claim? The first thing I note about that is that it is MSNBC. That’s like asking me to take VP Biden seriously. The second thing I notice is that social scientists have to be included to give a boost to the number of ‘scientists’ who believe in God (God or a god?). Do you understand in what scorn social scientists are held by those in FR who count themselves as scientists or who claim to speak for scientists? This is hardly credible.
To counter your claim, I offer an equally unreliable source: Time, 5 November 2006, God vs. Science which reports considerably less belief in God on the part of genuine scientists, and considerably greater tension between science and religion. Guess these two 'sources' had differing agendas at the time they produced their respective reports.
But don’t let us get you down. Address schaef21’s post and keep of FReeping.
(Courtesy ping to JR)
I don't believe I've ever seen anyone else respond in such a manner to remarks presented to them and accepted as being in a kindly and good=humored fashion. It doesn't seem like it would be very condusive to civil discourse.
Nature 394, p. 313 (1998)
| Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists | |||
| Belief in personal God | 1914 | 1933 | 1998 |
| Personal belief | 27.7 | 15 | 7.0 |
| Personal disbelief | 52.7 | 68 | 72.2 |
| Doubt or agnosticism | 20.9 | 17 | 20.8 |
| Belief in human immortality | 1914 | 1933 | 1998 |
| Personal belief | 35.2 | 18 | 7.9 |
| Personal disbelief | 25.4 | 53 | 76.7 |
| Doubt or agnosticism | 43.7 | 29 | 23.3 |
| Figures are percentages. | |||
You seem to enjoy being insulting, just for your own entertainment. ;-)
#1509 - What credentials or accomplishments do you possess that gives you the cachet to dismiss the considered professional judgments of distinguished scientists as mere “personal opinion”?
Everyone including scientists has personal opinions, which we are free to express any time.
Working scientists who do actual research, also publish their peer-reviewed scientific results in recognized journals. These articles are not intended to be mere expressions of personal opinion, but actual scientific findings. When a debate concerns "science," these articles carry more weight that mere personal opinions, I'd say.
To my knowledge, none of those so-called "considered professional judgements" are any more than personal opinions. When they can produce recognized scientific results THEN we will have a much different debate.
Furthermore, for every one of your "distinguished scientists," there are at least a hundred others whose "considered professional judgement" goes the other way.
Bottom line: our Intelligent Designers claim they have invented a new "scientific theory," but it is not recognized as even "scientific," much less a "theory," by any real scientific group.
"#1496 - You are a self-proclaimed rank scientific amateur, yet you seem to regard your grasp of science to be superior to many of the most accomplished and distinguished scientists in the world (Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al). Explain that glaring discrepancy if you can."
It is very curious to me, how often what you seem to say, YHAOS, and what you actually say may be two different things. Consider these names -- what are you really asking about? Are you suggesting these are somehow anti-evolutionist Intelligent Designers?
Bottom line: my "grasp of science" is in no way "superior" to those who work in the field. But I think I know the difference between science and religion.
I'll pick the rest of this up on the next post.
The answer is yes, but your question sounds like something you'd like to answer yourself -- so go ahead, give it a shot. Tell us what your opinion is on this subject.
YHAOS: "And again – In response to your complaint that science was being accused of ‘suppressing alternate views,’ I asked if you had discussed the data and the logic with the accusers, or if you had merely cried “liar!” and galloped on down the pike.
So straighten me out on those issues, if you can."
I note your mischaracterizing my arguments, would merely point out the following:
YHAOS: "What do you mean “taught”? Do they spend twenty minutes each week in Conformation or Sunday School teaching something called “theistic evolutionism.”? Or at the Wednesday night prayer gatherings? My grandson attends a parochial school, and they teach Science, not “theistic evolutionism.” And there’s none of this business that Evolution somehow proves that: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent (per Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al). As a matter of doctrine a good number of denominations may, indeed, subscribe to the validity of science, but when certain religious, philosophical, or moral conclusions are derived from science facts, that’s when the fur starts to fly."
Again, I'm doubtful if you understand what you're really arguing against.
"Theistic evolutionism" is the church doctrine of most Christian denominations. Simply put, it does not in any way deny the science of evolution, but assigns to evolution, along with every other natural process, the workings of the Hand of God. Put another way: evolution is God's plan.
Of course I understand your concerns -- that evolution theory supports atheists' claims that God was not involved. Well, that's their opinion, but most people, including most scientists can see the Hand of God working in evolution just as it does in everything else.
"To counter your claim, I offer an equally unreliable source: Time, 5 November 2006, God vs. Science which reports considerably less belief in God on the part of genuine scientists, and considerably greater tension between science and religion. Guess these two 'sources' had differing agendas at the time they produced their respective reports."
This seems to be an extraordinarily important point to you, and I'm baffled by that.
Anyone knows that whenever you take a poll, everything depends on who you select and how you ask the questions. So the percent who "believe in God" can vary all over the map. Some polls show around 90% of Americans believe in God, but as soon as you start narrowing down definitions to any specifics, the percentages drop significantly.
The same is true of scientists. So, maybe it's 2/3 believe in some generalized idea of "God," while only 1/3 believe in YOUR specific definition of God.
Why ever is that a problem for you?