This is a really interesting article. Thanks for the good read.
"I recently attended a lecture by Jonathan Wells on DNA and embryo development. At the end of the lecture one of the attendees asked him what the lecture had to do with Intelligent Design. The answer was instant, succinct and quite clear, “Nothing.” He is a biologist lecturing on biology—period."Was it this talk?"Even though the article had nothing to do with ID, did not mention ID, did not imply ID, and was approved by the referees, it was rejected because he is, you know, an infidel, one of those people. He, and others, are being black-listed to the point that they cannot simply function within their fields of research even when they do not tread upon the orthodoxy de jour."Dude, you reap what you sow. I can not feel sorry for Wells."But who was this scientist and what were his crimes against science? Was he one of those crazy creationists? Was he one of those wacky ID proponents? No.Atheism and scienceThis was written by Hannes Alfvén, plasma physicist and winner of a Novel Prize in Physics (amongst his many accolades), and the issue was whether cosmic rays are a galactic phenomenon or subject to heliospheric confinement."Alfvén would be turning in his grave if he knew that he was being used by creationists as a theistic argument for "academic freedom." Alfvén was a brilliant scientist who had to face a difficult audience with some of his ideas - not the first, nor the last, to go through this. IDers should follow his example rather than use him as an excuse. To even mention his name in the same context as intelligent design - I ought to kick you for defiling Alfvén's memory like that.
Prof. Richard Dawkins seeks to divert money from religious charities which provide life’s little luxuries such as homeless shelters, soup kitchens, disaster relief organizations, hospitals, adoption agencies, foster homes, etc., etc., etc. in favor of “charities free of ‘church contamination’” (perhaps to purchase bus ads).What that of course, means, is that instead of people giving any money to any church, that any money given would all be given to charity instead. Of course, in your eagerness to demonize the man, you don't bother to think of that. Or, more likely, you hope that your readers don't.I love how you complain about atheists taking out bus ads, yet you've no problem with xians having done such things for decades before atheists did.
Mariano,You missed Neil deGrasse Tyson's point. He is not outraged that there are theists in the NAS. He's actually criticizing those atheists who think that scientific ignorance completely explains theism.Tyson shows no mercy to bad science like Creationism/ID, but he's not particularly interested in converting theists. He's just challenging those of his colleagues who believe that teaching more science will eliminate faith to come up with an explanation for the significant number of theists in the NAS. Their naive hypothesis fails.He makes a good point--and one with which I'd think you'd agree.
kuhlmann,I tried to comment making your exact point, but I guess I goofed it somehow.Anyway, yes, Tyson is being misinterpreted by Mariano. Although I admit I misinterpreted Tyson initially as well.
Mariano, Is right. Whether you disagree with his references or not you cannot argue the premise. The Public school system has been attempting to secularize children for years.
"The Public school system has been attempting to secularize children for years."Yes, following the precedent of those evil founders of America. But the brave religionists have been fighting back by trying to get all of the kids in school, no matter what their own religion or the religion of their parents to pray according to a state-scripted prayer. Too bad that evil O'Hair lady objected, or we would be having our way every day with those secularists.
Oh boy! Another parade of quotes! Everybody loves a parade!!I don't think I've seen you write a single paragraph about any non-creationist anywhere near science that isn't dripping bile, accusing them of crimes, fraud or some lesser turpitude. From what you've written its a wonder scientists haven't all died off from the clap, stewed in depravity as we all are (according to you).Do you ever even try to confront the substance of the ideas that are in play instead of going straight to character assassination? At least you're consistent.That Wells lecture sure does look like a five alarm hoot! If that's what he has been shopping around to the journals its no wonder it hasn't been accepted. Does he ever do any research himself, or does he only carp about what others do?
"Yes, following the precedent of those evil founders of America. But the brave religionists have been fighting back by trying to get all of the kids in school, no matter what their own religion or the religion of their parents to pray according to a state-scripted prayer. Too bad that evil O'Hair lady objected, or we would be having our way every day with those secularists."Any argument that the founders were trying to form a secular country is historically baseless. It is true that they did not want the federal government to impose a federally approved sect (they did not place this limit on the state governments), but they were far from secular. For example, the very men who drafted the Bill of Rights asked the president to declare a day of hanksgiving to God. I could go on, but instead I suggest you check The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States by B. F. Morris. It provides hundreds of pages of documentation in support of religious foundations of the US.
"I could go on, but instead I suggest you check The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States by B. F. Morris. It provides hundreds of pages of documentation in support of religious foundations of the US."Then how come that support is not in the Constitution? (not for want of attempts) Maybe there's something wrong with your history, or your interpretation of it. Here are even some Christian theologians who seem to disagree with your creative history: Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State. You've got the wrong idea if you think that "not secular" means "Christian." The founders meant to secure equal rights for everyone, believers and infidels of all creeds. Secularism isn't a creed; it's the absence of a religious creed, treating them all equally. The public school system doesn't preach secularism: it merely follows the separation of church and state because that's the only neutral stance that denies nobody's constitutional rights.
"Oh boy! Another parade of quotes! Everybody loves a parade!!"Actually, everybody loves smartass agnostics. Look at George Carlin.
Unlike thiests who do "parades of quotes", at least Carlin was honest.
Carlin was an honest ass, sure. More honest than certain Canadians, I take it.
In spite of all the witless, dead from the neck up, atheist twit responses given here, there are some very revealing things presented in this post. By far the most revealing thing was that written by British atheist astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle: "Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction. Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature [magazine]." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," , Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4).