Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism

I watched most of the first video. While I admire his skill in the visual media, he had most of his facts wrong about Sternberg. Sternberg not only wasn't fired from his job as editor of BSOW journal, he wasn't even demoted. It's not even a job, it's a voluntary position to which you're appointed for a fixed period, three years I think. Finding people to fill these roles can be difficult, which could partly explain how he came to fill the position. He served his full term as editor.Prometheus is correct that Sternberg should have deferred the editor responsibility to an assistant editor more familiar with Cambrian life, but he's wrong to criticize Sternberg for not revealing the peer reviewers. Confidentiality is important to peer review. It drives me crazy that we'll never know who these reviewers were, but you can't have it both ways.Prometheus failed to debunk a couple other Expelled claims. Sternberg was never employed by the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian has a cooperative agreement with other research organizations to provide them research resources, such as office space and access to the collection. It was under this agreement this Sternberg has an office in the Smithsonian and access to the collection. And Expelled just lies blatantly when it says that Sternberg no longer works at the Smithsonian. He's had continuous access to his office and to the collection to this very day.The full and accurate facts about Sternberg can be found at Expelled Exposed: Richard Sternberg. I'm of course on Prometheus's side, but we should not let our friends commit the same offense of getting facts seriously wrong that creationists commit. He should have read pages like this before producing his video.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

While I am not an atheist, I do accept the theory of evolution, and I, too, am fairly inflexible about requiring solid objective evidence for theories I accept.Requiring evidence in support of accepted theory has nothing to do with atheism or theism. It's just science.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I know almost nothing about James Orr myself, but looking at the Wikipedia Article on James Orr it would seem that while the term he applied to himself was "theistic evolutionist," the meaning of the term has apparently evolved with time and today he'd be thought of as a progressive creationist.--Percy

So, sticking to the topic of this thread, what would it take to convince you that the Bible should be interpreted using the same criteria one would use for any other historical text?--Percy

I'm afraid it is you that has to come to terms with what creation science really is.Science's goal is to improve our understanding of the natural world, and in this it has succeeded in unprecedented fashion. In the western world we are surrounded by the contributions of science. Before you assert that "creation science" is really science, take a moment to consider that of all our modern scientific knowledge, none comes from "creation science". That's because it isn't science, it's religious apologetics.--Percy

Hi Kelly,You still haven't come to terms with what "creation science" really is. I again ask you to consider how "creation science" could possibly be considered any effective form of science if it's never contributed to our scientific knowledge in any way.You're probably equivocating (confusing two or more different meanings of the same word) when you say, "Scientists are suppose to 'search for truth'". Scientists *are* seeking what is true about universe, but they aren't seeking "truth" in any spiritual or religious sense. So if we were successful in helping you understand how scientific investigation is not restricted to the lab nor to evidence that was created before our very eyes, would that change your opinion? The reality is that scientists prefer the evolutionary model by about 100 to 1. The way theories become accepted is by presenting evidence and argument sufficient to persuade a significant subset of scientists from the relevant fields. Obviously creation "science"
has been unable to do this. Why do you think creation "science" should receive special treatment? You're expressing doubt that natural physical laws are sufficient for what we observe in nature. If we helped you understand how the argument from incredulity, the approach you're taking here, is invalid, would that help you change your opinion? We examine creationist writings here all the time. They're notable for their high content level of religious apologetics. I hope the translation isn't, "If you're not going to just accept what I say without argument, then I'm done with you." Setting yourself up as judge and jury, eh?--Percy

To everyone,I submit that given the course discussion has taken thus far that we have not yet identified any "best" approaches for dealing with fundamentalism, and that we're not really focusing very well on the topic. It makes it tough to have a contributor here who is actually trying to argue specific creation/evolution issues, but they are not the topic of this thread. We should be asking him questions about his viewpoints, perspectives and mindset.It does seem to me that Kelly's reconciliation of his religion with science comes from an unconscious but at least somewhat purposeful misunderstanding of the nature of science, as is clear from his criticism of naturalism and his lack of understanding of how theories become accepted. This is very typical of fundamentalists, and we should be exploring how best to deal with this mindset.--Percy

Hi Kelly,Creation science is not the topic of this thread. The title of this thread is Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism. If you check out the [forum=-5] forum you'll find threads closer to what you want to discuss. Or you can propose a new topic over at [forum=-25].You believe that supernaturalism should be a part of science. What approach should we take toward convincing you that science should focus on the natural, which means that which can be detected in some way by our senses?Sorry to call you a "he", but I do know a couple males with the first name of Kelly, and I also know several people with the last name of Kelly, and not all from the same family, either. It's a common name in this region of New England with its large ethnic Irish population. About the name Kelly Wikipedia says, "Kelly, and variants, was originally only a surname. With transferred use, Kelly become a popular masculine given name also..." You might want to study up on your own name. Anyway, there's no way I could know whether you're male or female or using a first name or last name, and in cases of insufficient information I always default to he. But thanks for the info, and now I know!!--Percy

Click on your account name, which is displayed in the left column next to each of your messages, and it will take you to a list of all the threads you're participating in, with a link to your most recent message in each thread. Very handy!AbE: Your account name also appears in the banner near the top of every page where it says, "Welcome, Member Kelly!". You can click on that link, too, and it will give you a list of all the threads you're participating in.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

You're probably right. The positive influences of discussion boards like this are probably limited to those still making up their minds, and perhaps to placing a seed doubt in some fundamentalists that might take root sometime down the road.That still leaves open the question of how best to deal with fundamentalism. If they can't be persuaded to change their views, and if they can't even be persuaded to leave science alone and keep religion in church, what are we to do?--Percy

I think almost everyone here would agree, including myself. The problem is that fundamentalist take their challenges and questions not to science but to school boards and state legislatures. So elaborating my earlier question just a bit it becomes, "Given that they won't take their issues to the halls of science, and given that they won't change their minds and won't keep their religion in church, what is to be done?"--Percy

It's good to know we have people around who know what's childish and what's not. Just for future reference, is someone who insists that a snake really did talk to Eve (who apparently not only understood everything he said but even followed his instructions to the letter) being childish? Or are they engaging in serious historical commentary? And whichever it is, how do we deal with such people?--Percy