Posted on 10/11/2010 4:08:45 PM PDT by Tribune7
Edited on 10/11/2010 4:50:00 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
USAToday, today, in the tradition of Jacques-Ren
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.billlawrenceonline.com ...
Faith, like faith in global warming even when you know the evidence is contrived?
The man is right. The global warming, Earth worship cult is destroying science right before our very eyes.
Unquestioned faith in science ruins science.
That’s silly. God created science.
Yeah, his religious faith made Sir Issac Newton a really crummy scientist all right. This putz couldn’t hold his apple.
Personally, I've never come across any strong and valid, or remotely sufficient, basis for denying evolution (common descent). And I say that having collected an antievolution library of several hundred volumes.
As to global warming, however, don't jump to conclusions. Even if Coyne happens to be an acolyte (I dunno) there are many non-religious types who aren't. I remember waaay back in the early 1990's, long before it became an issue with movement conservatives, the first people I knew of strenuously questioning global warming were "skeptic" groups; the same types who also debunk "psychic" powers, ufology, ghosts, and antievolutionary creationism. These groups (although by no means exclusively so) tend to be dominated by atheists and agnostics.
They (we) were on this before most of you were.
Yep, a “religious” fanatic
Er, yes, the mass murder schemes hatched by the atheists of the 20th Century really advanced the cause of science, /s
Science and faith are both necessary.They both provide hope.
The guy can't be serious.
...the first people I knew of strenuously questioning global warming were "skeptic" groups; the same types who also debunk "psychic" powers, ufology, ghosts, and antievolutionary creationism. These groups (although by no means exclusively so) tend to be dominated by atheists and agnostics.Arch-skepticultist Michael Shermer equates "deniers" with UFO "believers". The late Carl Sagan nearly singlehandedly gave birth to the global warming fiction, and all the cheerleaders of the so-called skeptical community followed in lockstep, tripping occasionally because they have their heads buried ostrichlike up their own asses.
/bingo!
1. That's you. It doesn't mean you are wrong it just means that there are those who have come across -- what they think just as what you think -- are strong and valid, much less remotely sufficient reasons, for doubting or having reservations about common descent. It doesn't mean they are stupid or should be driven from the public square.
2. What Coyne is saying is that any form of plan or design is incompatible with science. He is specifically saying that if you believe in directed evolution via common descent you are just as big a fool, in his view, as someone who believes that the Earth was created in 6 literal days 7,000 years ago.
3. Those skeptic types who doubted global warming waaaay back in the '90s were rather ineffective and inconsequental it seems. The charge is being led by believers in God like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Jim Inhofe. Limbaugh is an evo-skeptic as well as I suspect is Inhofe and Sarah.
One of the posters pointed out (quite rightly) that both sides seek to claim as their own rightful property those who culturally follow the tenets of their side, or are on good diplomatic terms with their side; but at the same time seek to separate all prestigious people, or those with favorable reputations, who are only "associated with" the *OTHER* side.
And of course, to disown their own stinkers and call out loudly all the scumbuckets on the other side.
The odd thing is, the atheist/skeptics seem to like to play an inconsistent version of the "Gotcha!" game, where anyone who has claimed to be a Christian immediately gets all of their bad behaviour super-glued to the Christians' collective account; regardless of whether the rest of their words, deeds, and life support the claim. The atheists usual justification for it is "they said it, who am I to read their heart and deny it?".
The reason this is inconsistent is that they don't blindly accept other people's claims to belong to different groups (e.g., you might have a PhD or an MD, but you're not considered a practicing doctor or intellectual if you stray too far off the beaten path in favor of quack remedies or the paranomral). Just the self-proclaimed Christians.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.