Sisyphus Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 The Discovery Institute, advocates for Intelligent Design and campaigners against evolution, rented some rooms at Southern Methodist University to hold one of their pretend conferences, and are a bit taken aback by the reaction of the science faculty there. The link is to a well written piece in the Dallas Morning News: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-wise_05edi.ART.State.Edition1.44e6403.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 "We do not argue against the basic right to believe, worship and express oneself as one desires. We are, however, vehemently opposed to the deliberate deception of presenting politically motivated religious viewpoints as science. It is destructive and antithetical to the usefulness of science, and history has shown that similar politicizations of science have been incredibly destructive to our moral, ethical and material progress. We have a duty as practitioners of science to speak out against such deceptions, and we have done so. " Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 You're surprised this came from the United Methodist's? to hold one of their pretend conferencesYou sound like one of those folks who think Global Warming is bunk. Darn, I thought you were better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted April 10, 2007 Author Share Posted April 10, 2007 You're surprised this came from the United Methodist's? Are they as bad as Roman Catholics and Jews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Are they as bad as Roman Catholics and Jews?Not saying they're bad. Just liberal, so this tends to not be surprising to those of us "on the inside". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted April 10, 2007 Author Share Posted April 10, 2007 You sound like one of those folks who think Global Warming is bunk. Darn, I thought you were better than that. A 'pretend conference' is one supposedly about science but where no peer reviewed papers are presented, and the audience interupts the speakers with chants of 'Amen'. I've got to admire your classic creationist debate tactic of attempting to change the subject to Climate Change.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 A 'pretend conference' is one supposedly about science but where no peer reviewed papers are presented, and the audience interupts the speakers with chants of 'Amen'. I've got to admire your classic creationist debate tactic of attempting to change the subject to Climate Change.:laugh: I never said I don't believe in evolution; evolution and a Creator of all things are not exclusive from one another as you might think. You are making assumptions, and you know what happens when you assume... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 This article could not have been more on point and furthermore, I'm glad to see it breaks from the often (unnecessarily) antagonistic approach many have taken publically in regards to this issue. As silly as the debate seems, that kind of antagonism only lends credence and power to this ridiculousness. Faith is faith, science is science. Please learn to be satisfied with your faith and stop trying to force faith be taught as science. It's really simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I never said I don't believe in evolution; evolution and a Creator of all things are not exclusive from one another as you might think. You are making assumptions, and you know what happens when you assume... I think we know you understand that and I certainly believe that the ideas are not even related and absolutely can stand by themselves. There is no reason why the idea of a creator and evolution can't go hand in hand. However, that is not what a lot of people would have you believe and, if I'm not mistaken, this conference which the article references is one that attempts to reject and replace the idea of evolution with intelligent design or whatever they're calling it now. Therefore, and because they were acting like it's a science, I think it's completely correct to call it a "pretend" conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 There is no reason why the idea of a creator and evolution can't go hand in hand.Yes and no. That is your opinion, and there are good arguments either way.However, that is not what a lot of people would have you believe and, if I'm not mistaken, this conference which the article references is one that attempts to reject and replace the idea of evolution with intelligent design or whatever they're calling it now.You are correct. It should not replace it. And I think most Christians ( I can't speak for others) don't want it replaced.Therefore, and because they were acting like it's a science, I think it's completely correct to call it a "pretend" conference.Again, that's your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 May I ask a question? When you break science down to the foundational level, what two things does it include? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 May I ask a question?When you break science down to the foundational level, what two things does it include? Consonants and vowels? How about you just tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Consonants and vowels?How about you just tell us. You're no fun Fitz. How about Cause and Effect. Isn't that how everything ultimately breaks down, including science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 You're no fun Fitz. How about Cause and Effect. Isn't that how everything ultimately breaks down, including science? Didn't mean for that to sound so snippy, so I'm glad you didn't take it that way. I suppose you could say everything breaks down to cause and effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 You're no fun Fitz. How about Cause and Effect. Isn't that how everything ultimately breaks down, including science? Well, in that case, science uses evidence and testing as means to that result. Intelligent design uses a book and faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I know! I know! Since NOBODY, on ANY side of the debate, can definitively prove how the universe started, what it IS, or where if anywhere it's headed ... why don't we all just agree that we just don't know yet? Or are we just so afraid of the dark we need to plug in a nightlight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I know! I know!Since NOBODY, on ANY side of the debate, can definitively prove how the universe started, what it IS, or where if anywhere it's headed ... why don't we all just agree that we just don't know yet? Or are we just so afraid of the dark we need to plug in a nightlight? Because knowing is half the battle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Because knowing is half the battle! It is? I've always believed half the battle is knowing what you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 It is? I've always believed half the battle is knowing what you don't know. Well that's the other half, of course. The third half is realizing that there are probably more than two halves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Well that's the other half, of course. The third half is realizing that there are probably more than two halves. Naturally. But we should probably try to remain practical. Nightlights can only do so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I know! I know!Since NOBODY, on ANY side of the debate, can definitively prove how the universe started, what it IS, or where if anywhere it's headed ... why don't we all just agree that we just don't know yet? Or are we just so afraid of the dark we need to plug in a nightlight? Because we don't know anything definitively until we study it. The other thing is that even things that most people think we know definitively we don't actually know definitively. Just as a simple example, I think everybody would agree that the sun is yellow, but how do you know that the sun in not in fact black, but that something happens in the act of us observing that causes it to change coloer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted April 10, 2007 Author Share Posted April 10, 2007 Because we don't know anything definitively until we study it. The other thing is that even things that most people think we know definitively we don't actually know definitively. Just as a simple example, I think everybody would agree that the sun is yellow, but how do you know that the sun in not in fact black, but that something happens in the act of us observing that causes it to change coloer? We know that for our local star the peak wavelength for radiation in the visible part of the spectrum is 570 nanometers. You call that yellow? My Belgian nephews call it jaune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Because we don't know anything definitively until we study it. The other thing is that even things that most people think we know definitively we don't actually know definitively. Just as a simple example, I think everybody would agree that the sun is yellow, but how do you know that the sun in not in fact black, but that something happens in the act of us observing that causes it to change coloer? Not sure how this follows from what I said. My point was that since neither science nor religion can provide definitive answers at this time to the really big questions I posed, only theories, it's fallacial thinking to make up answers just so we'll ... well, have some. Like doctrinaire religion does on one end of the spectrum, and like hard atheism on the other. Doesn't mean I don't think we should keep studying. I'm a big proponent of our keeping studying. I'm just a voice generally speaking out against filling in the blanks before we HAVE definitive answers, for whatever reasons we choose to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Not sure how this follows from what I said. My point was that since neither science nor religion can provide definitive answers at this time to the really big questions I posed, only theories, it's fallacial thinking to make up answers just so we'll ... well, have some. Like doctrinaire religion does on one end of the spectrum, and like hard atheism on the other. Doesn't mean I don't think we should keep studying. I'm a big proponent of our keeping studying. I'm just a voice generally speaking out against filling in the blanks before we HAVE definitive answers, for whatever reasons we choose to do so. I just can't imagine that we'll ever find the answers to those BIG questions. Though I would agree it's a hell of a lot of fun to try and find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted April 10, 2007 Author Share Posted April 10, 2007 I just can't imagine that we'll ever find the answers to those BIG questions. Though I would agree it's a hell of a lot of fun to try and find out. LSoSW vs DoG :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.