Replies

I know, and that's sad, but the fact is that it's very closely analogous.

So pointing out that "God belief" is not a short and concise summary of all religions in the world is analagous to being ignorant of air resistance?

If I were gullible enough to believe that, I'd probably be a liberal.

Citations to the contrary?

However, ID proponents are not among them. The way ID proponents are demonized on these threads is by declaring them nothing more than crevos in disguise.

And if you'd look at the very writings of ID proponents, you would know exactly why. They're called crevos in disguise because a number of them have admitted to being crevos in disguise. Why did Pat Robertson claim that the citizens of Dover should not call upon God in the face of a disaster? Why did members of the Kansas Board of Education state outright that their objections to evolution were religious in nature?

No, that's not right either. I don't reject the fossil record, while I do believe in God. It's entirely plausible to me that He might have used evolution to get where He was going.

And you won't find anyone on the evolution side who will take issue with this statement. Some will correctly tell you that this position is not scientific, but that's not the same as the position being false.

The crux of the matter is that many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God, and they don't want any interference.

Please. I've met very few atheists who actually make such a claim. The only one I've ever seen pop up regularly is Dawkins. And Dawkins talks out of his ass when he's talking outside of his field. The majority of people opposing ID in schools are theists, not atheists. Your claim doesn't stand up to cursory scrutiny.

So, people who believe in God are cranks, are we?

I was referring to people pushing ID and other nonscientific nonsense in science classrooms, not God-belief. I made that quite clear by bringing up that as the specific subject before making the reference to "cranks". Why did you quote me out of context like that?

Sure He is. You can throw up all the smokescreens you want, but the fact is that many "scientists" are driven to paroxyms of hysteria by the thought that someone might just poke his head into a classroom and say, "And we think God was behind it all."

That would be because "God was behind it all", while possibly a true statement, is not a scientific statement and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such.

"So pointing out that "God belief" is not a short and concise summary of all religions in the world is analagous to being ignorant of air resistance?"

You're getting colder.

"Citations to the contrary?"

They're all over the place. Could you really have missed them all?

"a number of them have admitted to being crevos in disguise."

Haven't seen that, myself. Dishonesty being contrary to the principles of Christianity, it's rather difficult to credit.

"Why did Pat Robertson claim that the citizens of Dover should not call upon God in the face of a disaster?"

I don't recall PR ever claiming to be anything but a Biblical literalist.

"Why did members of the Kansas Board of Education state outright that their objections to evolution were religious in nature?"

Since ID proponents don't object to evolution, I fail to see how that bears on the subject.

"And you won't find anyone on the evolution side who will take issue with this statement."

Au contraire, mon frere. I have found scads who fly into screaming conniptions at the mere suggestion.

"Some will correctly tell you that this position is not scientific, but that's not the same as the position being false."

That's very rational.

Look, I agree that science classes shouldn't be converted into theology classes. But where is the pressing need for an absolute embargo on any mention, however brief, of a credible position taken by many intelligent people?

I could see scientists getting upset if there were a requirement to teach a great deal of theology, or to spend even five minutes per class on it, but whence this demand for a hermetic seal?

"Please. I've met very few atheists who actually make such a claim."

You must have walked through a door into an alternate reality of greater rationality. It sure is a lot different from this universe.

"The majority of people opposing ID in schools are theists, not atheists. Your claim doesn't stand up to cursory scrutiny."

Again, that's your perception.

"Why did you quote me out of context like that?"

It wasn't clear to me. That's the way I read it. Now that you have corrected me as to your intent, I apologize for any offense my incorrect reading caused.

That said, I must ask again: Whence this desperate need for a hermetic seal? What harm is done by taking a minute or so during a semester to mention that some people think that God is behind it all?

"That would be because "God was behind it all", while possibly a true statement, is not a scientific statement and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such."

I don't recall presenting it as a scientific statement.

A semester is roughly nine weeks. A typical class might have three hours a week of lectures. That's 1,620 minutes. Is the scientific community so bereft of consideration for the feelings of its fellow citizens that they man the barricades and fight to the last man rather than offer a single one of those minutes for the expression of a statement that, while not scientific, has huge implications for the decision a scientist must make in the course of his work?

Please. I've met very few atheists who actually make such a claim. The only one I've ever seen pop up regularly is Dawkins. And Dawkins talks out of his ass when he's talking outside of his field. The majority of people opposing ID in schools are theists, not atheists. Your claim doesn't stand up to cursory scrutiny.

I know that Dawkins dislikes religion, and that he thinks that evolution makes religion unnecessary, but that is a long way from Dawkins asserting that evolution proves religion to be false. I am not aware that he has ever said that amongst his numerous anti-religion statements.

It is true that Dawkins talks out of his ass about politics however.