Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[longshadow]

Doublets can in principle eliminate spherical aberration at one color only.

I assume you meant "chromatic" aberration, not "spherical," as that's what achromatic (doublet) lenses do....

;-)

[From many - one.]

ref posts 666, 668, 685, 800 inter alia

notice of overdue rent

to be paid promptly

currency accepted: Ripostes.

penalties enforced after post 899.

[longshadow]

There was a young lady named Bright,
Who transcribed much faster than light,
She'd write it all day,
In a relative way,
And have it the previous night.

There once was a man from Maclean,
Who invented a sex machine.
Concave or convex,
it would serve either sex
but oh; what a b@stard to clean!

;-)

[ArGee]

You forgot to describe any 'ugliness' on Galileo's side.

Actually, I forgot to bring in the book. I'm trying to avoid speaking for more than I can at this point.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

And that, dear hearts, is what has been wrong with this arrogant church for 1400 years, and why it is, quite rightly, synonymous with the bogeyman in the hearts of so many Jewish and Muslim children--way too many of their ancestors murdered by deputies of a church that "will not accept a challenge to its spiritual authority".

But in that way is the Church different from any other institution?

Even the "scientific community" is coming painfully close to creating a witch hunt every time someone wants to question evolutionary teaching. When people gain authority they hate to have it challenged.

However, this does not change the original statement that the science and faith mix, and mix well. Politics and challenges to authority don't.

Shalom.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"The results of [Galileo's experiments] shocked the sensibilities of contemporary scholars. Galileo's experimental methods were entirely foreign to scientists of his day and were regarded by most of his colleagues as undesirable if not dangerous innovations. Accordingly, the results derived in this fashion were also suspect.

"These studies which upset Aristotelian physicists, as well as Galileo's habit of getting into trouble with persons who did not agree with him, made Galileo far from popular with the faculty at Pisa. Either on this account or on account of his father's death in 1591, Galileo resigned his teaching post at the University several months before it was due to expire and returned to his mother's home in Florence."

-------

"Galileo . . . was prone to sharply criticize unsubstantiated statements and theories unsupported by observation."

-------

Carl J. Wenning, Coordinator
Physics Teacher Education Program
Illinois State University

Today it's Behe's publications that shock the sensibilities of public education. The Darwinian approach to understanding how the universe ticks is on the wane. Wonder what Galileo would think of those who assert that man is the culmination of wholly natural processes lacking either intelligence or design.

[RadioAstronomer]

RadioAstronomer playing hooky from FR placemarker.

(Will this affect my standing at Darwin Central?)

[ArGee]

The faith of the inventor of science, the inventor of calculus or any other prominent scientist is irrelevant to the question of whether there's a place in scientific inquiry for the supernatural, however. Where in Newton's work is there a requirement for a deity, for example.

You have made a leap that I did not make. You moved from "place" to "requirement."

In fact, there must be a place for the supernatural in scientific inquiry because the supernatural exists. If scientists are forced not to recognize something that exists they are limited in their inquiry.

It is reasonable to say that the scientific method can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural, but there must be a place for it.

Shalom.

[RadioAstronomer]

:-)

[Dimensio]

Nope never said that!

Then why did you seem to agree with patriot_wes, who implied exactly that?

[Gumlegs]

I've devised a brilliant method to measure the speed of light, using marshmallows and a jock strap.

It's going back a long way, but isn't that the first step in proving a towel can exceed the speed of sound?

[Gumlegs]

Will this affect my standing at Darwin Central?)

Yes. For the next hour, you'll be standing in the corner.

[donh]

Even the "scientific community" is coming painfully close to creating a witch hunt every time someone wants to question evolutionary teaching. When people gain authority they hate to have it challenged.

The scientific community hasn't typically ordered the murder, arrest, torture, excommunication, or burning at the stake of its philosophical disputants. It does not forbid the reading of their books, unlike the Catholic church, to this very day.

However, this does not change the original statement that the science and faith mix, and mix well. Politics and challenges to authority don't.

Be that as it may, that still does not make ID a science worthy of being taught in science classes.

[donh]

"The results of [Galileo's experiments] shocked the sensibilities of contemporary scholars.

By "scholar" one presumes, we are referring to the prelates of the inquisition, and their priestly fellow travelers. Galileo's book was immensely popular with intelligent laypeople of the rennaissance, and practicing scientists, such as there were of them. It is a little hard to understand how a book with previously almost unheard of circulation numbers should have been bought up by people repulsed by it.

[Liberal Classic]

Again, you wave the ad hominem flag as a silencer. It won't work. There is nothing ad hominem about pointing out Dawkins veiws on religion when he makes bigotted attacks based in religion on an entire states population.

Einstein was a socialist. Thomas Edison and Henry Ford had anti-semitic views. Werner Heisenberg worked on the Nazi atomic bomb project. Do we question relativity because of Einstein's political beliefs? Of course not. Do we stop driving cars or using light bulbs because of Ford and Edison's political beliefs? Do we reject quantum mechanics because Heisenberg did not defect from Nazi Germany? Do we question the value of their scientific and technological achievements? No, of course not.

It is for these reasons I reject the relevancy of constantly bringing up Dawkin's political beliefs. As others have also noted, they are neither relevant to science in general, nor evolutionary biology in particular.

You are not "exposing Dawkins." His views are well known. The only purpose to bringing up Dawkins' political beliefs is to smear those people who support evolutionary biology must be lilly-livered Bush-having leftists. This is a cheap tactic of guilt by association.

[Ichneumon]

I was simply agreeing with the poster who said we literally choose what we want to believe. It's as simple as that----a matter of choice.

Is it, really? Could you actually "choose" to believe that Santa Claus is real? If you did, would that be actual belief, or just pretending that you believed? Could you "choose" to stop believing in something that you currently believe in strongly?

[furball4paws]

I already tried that but the marshmallows were too gooey. However, I think a bra might work - two data points for the price of one.

[donh]

"Galileo . . . was prone to sharply criticize unsubstantiated statements and theories unsupported by observation."

Huh, how heineous. I guess that would make him, what? A scientist?

-------

Carl J. Wenning, Coordinator
Physics Teacher Education Program
Illinois State University

Oh, well, there's an authoratative source.

Today it's Behe's publications that shock the sensibilities of public education. The Darwinian approach to understanding how the universe ticks is on the wane.

Except, of course, amongst a small minority of the population called scientists.

Wonder what Galileo would think of those who assert that man is the culmination of wholly natural processes lacking either intelligence or design.

I wonder, apropos to the quote above, what Galileo would think of people who cling to marginal pseudo-scientific theories like ID "unsupported by observation" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that convinces hundreds of thousands of working scientists totally immersed in the philosophy of intensely critical observation.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Galileo's book was immensely popular with intelligent laypeople of the rennaissance . . .

His work was received by people both inside and outside of the church. "Immensely popular" is an overstatement.

[PatrickHenry]

It's going back a long way, but isn't that [a brilliant method to measure the speed of light, using marshmallows and a jock strap] the first step in proving a towel can exceed the speed of sound?

No. How could you hope to grasp the glory of my discovery? Fool!