Evidence for a Conspiracy of Scientists?

and the key to this, of course, is education. it's up to the teachers and professors to educate people so that they understand what science is about, and why these arguments are appeals to ignorance. in short, to install their "bullshit detectors" correctly.and where are the creationists attacking first?education.

quote:

---

Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’ Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

---

quote:

---

... a bill that aims to stamp out leftist totalitarianism by dictator professors in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.

---

and now look where the charge of conspiracy comes in:

quote:

---

In an interview before the meeting, Baxley said arrogant, elitist academics are swarming to oppose the bill, and media reports misrepresented his intentions.

---

http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050323freedom.phpso, where is the conspiracy really? if a dominant set of beliefs thrives on ignorance, and then uses government powers to attack education, isn't that a bit more of a conspiracy than the "leftist totalitarian dictator professors?" the accusations of conspiracy are a key part of this. they play to ignorance as well.

it's a bit of a vicious cycle, though, isn't it?ignorance promotes the view, which then in turn promotes ignorance? i think if you were to do a poll of the majority opinion, you'd find that most people agree with his position. except in universities of course.

also: never go in against a sicilian when DEATH IS ON THE LINE! i have heard stories of scientists being dismissed from reputable organization for openly voicing beliefs in creationism. i do not recall how accurate these stories were, but i do recall them being suspicious.and even if that is the case, where's the problem? that's like dismissing a mathematician for ignoring things like the distrubitive property, and teaching that you can add fractions straigh across.if someone shows blatant ignorance of their field, they SHOULD be fired. i'm arguing in two different threads that the bible talks about the earth being flat, with a giant glass dome overhead called "heaven" that contains the stars etc, and outside of that is just water. and that's the entire universe.i don't think the bible's doing so good at explaining natural phenomina. i don't really even think it TRIES to.

well, that's why i wrote the second sentance. i don't think the bible EVER attempted to explain any sorts of detail about the natural world. the only crack they take it is genesis 1, and that story is largely borrowed from babylon anyways.but the point of what i said was that genesis in particular is not a set of explanations of natural things. it's a set of explanations for traditions. these are usually found at the ends of passages. genesis 1 for instance is not about the creation of the universe, it's about why we're supposed to take saturdays off. genesis 2 is not about the garden of eden. it's about why men and women marry. genesis 3 is about why snakes crawl on their bellies, why childbirth/parenting is painful, and why the people of israel keep trying to farm a desert. these are SOCIAL things, not SCIENTIFIC things.every bit of the book indicates that the redactors were not concerned with logical and factual detail, just meaning. stories overlap, and are inconsistent. they just didn't care at all about accuracy to reality, just internal accuracy of the source texts.

well, you know, if you ignore the slavery. yeah that was kinda lame. but milk and honey, apparently.

it is to some degree. but it's more of a cursory statement of how things got to be, for the purposes of preserving traditions. the point of the creation story is not the explanation of how god made the earth in the 6 days, but why we should take the 7th off.the evidence is that the redactors didn't care about fitting the story with reality, just preserving the tradition. although originally, the source of the story (probably babylonian, actually) probably WAS an attempt to explain the natural world.

well, his son also apparently rose from the dead on a SUNday (no coincidence there), so we get two days off, really.religion: n. a good excuse for a holiday.