Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists control science
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1 of 124 (671047)
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


From the I am not an atheist! thread;
Tangle writes:
marc9000 writes:
....and atheists control science. (there is evidence for it)
I'm calling you on this one. Would you like to start a new thread to defend your assertion?
Hence, this thread.
Tangle writes:
But I recommend you do some research on what your terms mean before you start...
My terms are that "science" is the scientific community, and that "control" means decisions that are made regarding publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science. This thread is mainly about the U.S. scientific community.
Wikipedia has a webpage that gives some detail of just what the "scientific community" is. A relevant paragraph from that page;
quote:
Unlike in previous centuries when the community of scholars were all members of learned societies and similar institutions, there are no singular bodies or individuals which can be said today to speak for all of science. This is partly due to the specialized training most scientists receive in very few fields. As a result, many would lack expertise in all the other fields of the sciences. However, there are still multiple societies and academies in many countries which help consolidate some opinions and research to help guide public discussions on matters of policy and research. In the United States, for example, the National Academy of Science sometimes acts as a surrogate when the opinions of the scientific community need to be ascertained by policy makers or the national government, but the statements of the National Academy are not binding on scientists nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of every scientist in the community.
The National Academy of Sciences, publications like the Scientific American, and university administrators and others who are involved in hiring practices in academia, are all very influential when it comes to control. The leaders don't necessarily have to be "binding" or "reflect the opinions" of every scientist to politically control science as a whole.
I'll start with evidence for discrimination in hiring practices.
Series of Costly Case Settlements Warns Darwin’s Bullies: Stop Censoring Intellectual Freedom | Evolution News
quote:
This month, the state-run California Science Center (CSC) paid $110,000 to avoid a public trial and settle a lawsuit by American Freedom Alliance (AFA). The suit was filed because CSC violated AFA's First Amendment right to discuss intelligent design (ID).
and
quote:
This case reflects the ongoing trend of discrimination against intelligent design. In January, the University of Kentucky paid $125,000 to settle a lawsuit by astronomer Martin Gaskell who was wrongfully denied employment because he was perceived to be skeptical towards Darwinian evolution.
Just two examples - the link shows a few more. They get caught every once in a while, but considering the shouting down of the examples of discrimination the movie "Expelled" exposed, it's probably safe to say that penalties for discrimination by the scientific community are about as rare as a speed limit violating driver receiving a ticket for every time he speeds.
Next, we'll note evidence in the form of "The Scientific American" articles. This one is a training course for using science, not just anti-religion, to promote atheism.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rational...
[QUOTE]2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.” [/QUOTE]
"Gradual illumination of men's minds", or children's minds? Darwin's philosophy is promoted and extended today as much as ever. That Scientific American article is largely indistinguishable from one of militant atheist Sam Harris' many essays;
Science Must Destroy Religion | HuffPost Latest News
quote:
I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths.
The Scientific American has a "skeptic" section, with many articles by Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, which currently has over 55,000 members. Shermer has little, if any scientific credentials, yet he writes for the Scientific American.
Finally, the National Academy of Science. It's a non-profit U.S. government organization, begun in 1863.
National Academy of Sciences - Wikipedia
quote:
Members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine". As a national academy, new members of the organization are elected annually by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.
In other words, it does what it wants, with no input from the taxpayers who support it.
Human Events has some (documented) things to say about the National Academy of Sciences;
http://www.humanevents.com/...d-national-academy-of-sciences
quote:
In 2008, NAS published Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a book sent to every public school board member and science teacher in America. The book's message: Darwinian evolution is the only acceptable explanation for human origins. The book treats the intelligent-design hypothesis as invalid without presenting a shred of empirical evidence to contradict it.
There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science. Why is that a problem? Here's why, because a pew research center poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans, while 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest don't know, or won't commit. We probably see far less than 6 percent of evolution proponents on these forums who would ever vote for a Republican. Yet other survey data shows that the scientific community enjoys the trust of 90 percent of the U.S. population, more than the Supreme Court or the military! I'm part of the other 10 percent, and I wonder how long it will be before at least some of the 90 percent wakes up and realizes that the scientific community is probably the biggest ally the Democrats have in obtaining political power and money, and that the Democrats are probably the biggest ally the scientific community has in obtaining political power and money.
Can anyone really claim, and justify, that science is free from political partisanship?
Edited by marc9000, : Cleaned up punctuation
Edited by marc9000, : Clarified as asked in message 2.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 08-20-2012 8:18 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 08-20-2012 8:31 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 6 by Panda, posted 08-21-2012 10:59 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2012 12:18 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 08-22-2012 12:50 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 08-22-2012 12:54 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 11 by Pressie, posted 08-22-2012 4:42 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 12 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2012 5:54 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 08-22-2012 8:10 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 08-22-2012 10:39 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 08-22-2012 3:06 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 21 by Aware Wolf, posted 08-22-2012 3:27 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 08-23-2012 2:14 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4 of 124 (671050)
08-21-2012 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
08-20-2012 8:31 AM


The control I'm referring to IS political. To restrict it to exclude politics would keep me from making relevant points, and nothing would be accomplished. It's not important to me what forum it's in, so I guess the coffee house would be where I'd hope you'll promote it. 6% v 55% - isn't that worth some exploration? If it can't be freely/completely discussed as I've proposed it, then we'll just have to forget it, and Tangle, Coyote, Razd, Dr Adaquate, and others can all heave collective sighs of relief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 08-20-2012 8:31 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(2)
Message 25 of 124 (671180)
08-22-2012 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
08-22-2012 10:25 AM


Re: A Proposal, Modest
Rather than mob Marc, I think we should nominate the authors of the three highest-rated messages in this thread as sole participants. Three versus one is still a bit unfair but Marc has demonstrated at least an interest in responding to as many participants, if not more, in the past.
In that spirit, I'd ask Marc to hold off on any reply for perhaps a few days or so, and then respond only to those messages which have been most highly rated. Or, any additional messages that he may choose, with the understanding that doing so constitutes his invitation for that author to participate.
I sincerely appreciate it, but I don't mind - I don't want anything held back. I can ignore what I think is unrelated or unimportant, and I like to try to answer multiple, yet similar points with one answer when I can. I just need time, I'm working long hours and can't be shorting myself on sleep. I'll just get to the one question tonight - "what definition of atheism am I using", and I'll try to cover everything else, (including what my next message inspires) by Sunday evening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2012 10:25 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 26 of 124 (671181)
08-22-2012 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Panda
08-21-2012 10:59 PM


Re: Atheists? control science
It seems strange that there are only 3 words in the title and yet you only define 2 of them.
What definition of 'atheist' are you using?
A legitimate question - the definition of an atheist is one that everyone knows - a lack of belief in a god or gods. When I refer to an atheist that has a measure of political control over science however, I define that person differently than I do a normal atheist citizen that works/worked in the private sector, and lives a normal life of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness like anyone else, as guaranteed him/her by the country's founding and intended by its framers.
But an atheist that has enough political influence to try to get a measure of atheist establishment in place (in violation of the first amendment) then I can go to a dictionary and find a more suitable definition of him/her;
Atheism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
You'll find two words under ~number 1~ definitions of atheism; "ungodliness" and "WICKEDNESS". So "wickedness" is my dictionary definition of how I define atheism specifically for this discussion.
Atheists are a diverse group, as are Christians. You, and maybe others here may want to define some events/people in Christianity with the term wickedness. If you can't show it as a dictionary definition, (which you can't) then please don't do it here! If you do, then I'm afraid I'll have little choice but to report you to forum administration!
I'll be back by Sunday to address some of the other messages here, if the thread is still open.
Edited by marc9000, : To conform to requirements of message 28.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Panda, posted 08-21-2012 10:59 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nwr, posted 08-22-2012 8:09 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 28 by Admin, posted 08-22-2012 8:12 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 29 by dwise1, posted 08-22-2012 9:00 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2012 11:01 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2012 11:57 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 08-23-2012 3:46 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 34 by dwise1, posted 08-23-2012 4:02 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 08-23-2012 1:31 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 08-23-2012 2:17 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 08-23-2012 4:49 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 41 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-24-2012 11:46 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2012 10:34 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 83 by dwise1, posted 08-28-2012 11:48 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 44 of 124 (671507)
08-26-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nwr
08-22-2012 12:54 AM


Re: Scientists control science
It is true that the politicians may make only the primary decisions, and delegate secondary decisions to scientists. However, that only happens because the politicians have decided that the scientist can generally be trusted as the most capable of making these decisions.
And it’s time for the politicians to recognize that the times are changing. There is a new type of atheism that has organized only recently, and is quickly gaining acceptance in science. The Wall Street Journal has called it New Atheism, its definition can be found all over the net. Here is a common definition;
quote:
Militant atheist is defined as one who is militantly opposed to theism, theists, and religion. Militant atheists have an extreme hostility towards religious theism that entails a desire to see religion suppressed by force. The label militant atheist tends to be used interchangeably with fundamentalist atheist, new atheist, and anti-theist.
Militant Atheist Definition and Examples
Atheism itself isn’t necessarily hostile to religion, but New Atheism is, and more and more atheists seem to be joining its ranks, inspired by its 21st century popular champions like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Stenger, Provine, Weinberg, etc. These guys have been around a long time, and have been only tolerated, or skeptically recognized until recently, but they’re getting to be admired. Their increasing appeal as a license to forget morality, justify big government spending, and charm the young ladies is all working in their favor.
We saw this, in message 9;
dwise1 writes:
Why are so few scientists Republicans? It's very simple. Scientists are both intelligent and sane, two qualities that are incompatible with the wing-nut travesty that the GOP has now become. Let's face it, who in their right mind could even consider voting Republican?
Since statistics show that only 6% of scientists are Republicans, the above statement probably reflects the overwhelming opinion of those making decisions about scientific employment and (to a significant percentage of the population) morally troubling decisions like embryonic stem cell research, cloning, the effects of abortion, etc. It's actually not the Republicans who have changed, it's the Democrats who have changed.
____________________________________
[NOTE - I have about 6 messages to respond to tonight - I'd appreciate no cut-in's until I'm done. Only another hour or two.]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 08-22-2012 12:54 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nwr, posted 08-26-2012 7:58 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 59 by DC85, posted 08-27-2012 12:08 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 61 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2012 3:39 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 62 by Granny Magda, posted 08-27-2012 6:38 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 84 by dwise1, posted 08-29-2012 12:19 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 93 by dwise1, posted 08-29-2012 3:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 45 of 124 (671508)
08-26-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tangle
08-22-2012 5:54 AM


marc9000 writes:
There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science.
Could you tell me exactly who is excluded from this process then - is it just the agnostics that have anything to complain about?
The excluded are the many Christians who are not always allies with the naturalism that the scientific community is committed to. The scientific community that "does not allow a divine foot in the door". (Lewontin) Or the scientific community that should "weaken the hold of religion" (Weinberg)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2012 5:54 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Tangle, posted 08-27-2012 3:17 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 46 of 124 (671509)
08-26-2012 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
08-22-2012 6:55 AM


Re: warm blooded dinosaurs
quote:
An Ecumenical Christian minister, Bakker has said there is no real conflict between religion and science. He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.[7]
It is a claim that always switches according to the argument. Stephen Jay Gould has made the same statement. Sometimes Christians say that, sometimes atheists say that. Yet throughout the NAS, throughout The Scientific American, throughout so much evolutionist/atheist literature out today by the above named authors, and other Christians (such as myself) say that science and religion are very much in conflict. The truth is, if science would stay within its bounds, they wouldn’t conflict. But since science is controlled by atheism, they do conflict.
He is no atheist, and he was instrumental in causing a rather major revision of scientific thought, and therefore this one instance alone completely and utterly refutes marc9000's point. If marc9000 disagrees I suggest he contact Dr Bakker himself for guidance.
This one instance alone? One exception to a rule completely voids a general rule? Not very logical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2012 6:55 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 47 of 124 (671510)
08-26-2012 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tangle
08-22-2012 7:53 AM


I'd say that degree of atheism in the NAS is quite surprising, whist the proportion in the general population of scientists is pretty much what I would have expected - science is not dominated by atheists.
So now it's marc's task to show how this distribution manages to control all of science.
The NAS is where the political power is. We’ve already learned that the NAS is not a Democracy. Quite surprising - very good! I may bring those two words up again after the next round of replies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2012 7:53 AM Tangle has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 48 of 124 (671511)
08-26-2012 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
08-22-2012 8:10 AM


marc9000 writes:
Shermer has little, if any scientific credentials, yet he writes for the Scientific American.
According to Wikipedia, Shermer has a master's in experimental psychology, a PhD in the history of science, and is the author of a number of lay-level science books.
Darn, and I thought I learned something here in the past - I guess not. You see, I was going by memory of what I was told 2 1/2 years ago on another thread;
Message 27
Dr. Adequate writes:
Shermer is not a scientist, let alone a prominent one. He's noted as a skeptical activist, not a scientist.
You were participating in that thread and didn’t correct him. He is participating in this thread and didn’t correct you. So I guess whether Shermer is a legitimate scientist or not is switchable depending on the subject I’m discussing. One thing I’d bet you and Dr Adequate would heartily agree on however, and that would be if there was an ID supporter with the exact same credentials as Shermer, he would be no scientist.
About the desirability of removing religious superstition from our understanding of the world in which we live, that's just good science, not atheism.
That’s the new atheist philosophy, and that’s the crux of the issue. It used to be that those in the scientific community recognized science for what it was, only a part, often a small part, of a complete understanding of the world in which we live. It used to know its limits — it used to know that science had nothing to say about the never ending questions of life, death, love, and meaning. The scientific community used to know that religious traditions of mankind have significant things to say about things that science does not. That was a time when there was no real conflict between religion and science.
Now the scientific community is advanced enough to think that anything other than naturalistic science is nothing but superstition. Other significant things now mean nothing — they must be removed. Now science is in conflict with religion. And it’s religion’s fault, for not bending and shaping itself enough to conform to the latest atheistic proclamations about all of reality.
What bothers you about science isn't that it's controlled by atheists, because it isn't. What bothers you about science is that it isn't controlled by religious fundamentalists.
What bothers me is that it’s no longer controlled by people who know what its limits should be. It used to be that scientists were reluctant to give offence to religion. Why make trouble, why offend people who largely make the scientists livelihood possible? Today, they’re offended by those very people, the ones who get in their way concerning new abortion techniques, cloning, or many big government mandates that give science more and more political power and money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 08-22-2012 8:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2012 7:36 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2012 7:37 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 08-26-2012 9:58 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 50 of 124 (671513)
08-26-2012 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taq
08-22-2012 10:39 AM


What you have shown is that pseudoscientists are using political pressure to force people to hire them, or pay out when they refuse to hire a pseudoscientist. I really don't see anything wrong with not hiring or firing a scientist who refuses to use science. That is the way it should be. When your beliefs compromise your science then you are no longer a scientist.
But different people have different definitions of what a pseudoscientist is. Some think Michael Shermer is a pseudoscientist. But since the NAS is in control, it defines someone like Michael Behe as a pseudoscientist. And so Michael Shermer is in!
marc9000 writes:
Finally, the National Academy of Science. It's a non-profit U.S. government organization, begun in 1863.
Yes it is, just like the National Institutes of Health which fund grants in the biological sciences.
No, it isn’t just like the National Academy of Sciences. The National Institutes of Health, the.National cancer institute, national library of medicine, national eye institute, etc. are more narrowly focused on one secular subject, the National Academy of Science covers science much more generally, and is much more political in its operations. Its members serve as advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine".
How does this granting agency work? First, Congress decides how much money they are going to give to these granting agencies. They also decide who is going to run the agency (currently, it is the outspoken evangelical Dr. Francis Collins who previously ran the NIH Human Genome Project). This is the input that taxpayers have. They decide, through their representatives, how much money is going to go into the system and the leadership within the NIH.
Once that money is received by the NIH they will decide which areas of research they would like to focus on most, and then advertise for Letters of Intent. If the scientist meets the requirements for NIH funding as judged by the LoI, then they are allowed to submit a research grant. In the grant they will describe the work they have already done, the hypotheses they will test, and the experiments they will use to test the hypotheses. They will also submit a budget. These grants will be judged by a group of peers who are not chosen based on their religious views, but rather as their reputation as scientists. Right now, about 5-10% of these grants will be funded.
I realize there are established procedures for many activities in scientific/government organizations. I’m suspicious of humans that serve as advisors, humans that are more and more willing to give offence to religion as they attempt to make science the all encompassing worldview that they seek for it. Defined procedures can be heavily tweaked in politics, and as we’re learning, in science.
Nowhere on these grants do you list your religious affiliation. I really, really doubt you could ever determine a scientist's religious beliefs by reading a grant. To prove this, I give you this challenge. I have picked a paper at random which can be found here:
Prevention of cardiomyopathy in mouse models lacking the smooth muscle sarcoglycan-sarcospan complex - PMC
I haven't even read it, and I do not know the authors. Your challenge is to read the paper and determine the religious beliefs of the authors. If you fail to do so, then your claims about discrimination are moot. There is simply no way to determine a person's religious belief by their science, at least for those who are actually doing science.
If I can’t determine religious beliefs of certain authors, then it’s NOT POSSIBLE for them to discriminate against someone, or some scientific idea that they don’t like? If that were true, we could save ourselves a lot of time and money with the legal system. All we’d have to do is ask the accused if they committed the crime. If they say no, drop the case. Your logic is flawed in comparison to that of Razd.
Your second challenge is to describe what types of experiments would be in a grant for research in intelligent design.
When I have many opponents, I don’t do long, drawn out, off topic challenges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 08-22-2012 10:39 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 08-27-2012 1:31 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 08-28-2012 7:47 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 53 of 124 (671516)
08-26-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Modulous
08-22-2012 3:06 PM


marc9000 writes:
My terms are that "science" is the scientific community, and that "control" means decisions that are made regarding publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science
Then it should be noted that the government is composed mostly of religious people, not atheists.
But the NAS is composed mainly of atheists/agnostics, and they don’t always answer to government.
In other words, {NAS} does what it wants, with no input from the taxpayers who support it.
What input should they take from taxpayers, and how should that be done?
It's time for politicians and 90% of the general public to wake up to just how "new atheist" the scientific community has become.
My point is that the government is asleep at the switch, that the National Academy of Sciences is composed mostly of atheists, and they’re showing themselves more and more to be New Atheists, and the public deserves more representation from their government than does a radical special interest like new atheists.
You'll have to support your contention that the people responsible for this discrimination were atheists.
The Duck Test takes care of it. That’s what the National Academy of Sciences and the courts do with the religious label of those who promote Intelligent Design.
marc9000 writes:
"Gradual illumination of men's minds", or children's minds?
He said 'men' so I'm guessing he meant that.
In this controversy, neither side automatically takes remarks from the other side at face value. When ID proponents claim that religion and ID are separate, do you chide atheists for not automatically accepting it?
Yeah, when the Republicans start supporting government funded scientists more regularly, maybe they'll win more scientist's votes.
That could be a hard sell, since the Republicans seem to have a much better understanding of the U.S. financial problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 08-22-2012 3:06 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 08-27-2012 9:37 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 54 of 124 (671518)
08-26-2012 7:52 PM


Atheists do the darndest things
I knew it wouldn't work! From my message 44;
marc9000 writes:
[NOTE - I have about 6 messages to respond to tonight - I'd appreciate no cut-in's until I'm done. Only another hour or two.]
From here on, I won't respond to anymore individual messages. I'll group anything else I have to say in a general message. If someone doesn't like it, they can cry to Dr Adequate or Coyote, not to me.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 08-26-2012 10:02 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 58 by DC85, posted 08-26-2012 11:46 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 64 by Admin, posted 08-27-2012 8:38 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024