|
Author
|
Topic: Evidence for a Conspiracy of Scientists?
|
Tusko
Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: 10-01-2004
|
|
Message 46 of 85 (203901)
04-30-2005 6:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by mick
04-29-2005 1:04 PM
|
|
His argument sounds very sensible to me. He is also at pains to explain why he thinks it important (and the wording also makes it clear that he is quite well rehearsed in the standard anti-evolution arguments. I bet it doesn't cut much mustard with conspiracy theorists though. I'd be very interested to hear what one of them might say in response to that letter.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by mick, posted 04-29-2005 1:04 PM | | mick has not replied |
|
Tusko
Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: 10-01-2004
|
|
|
Message 47 of 85 (203903)
04-30-2005 6:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by mick
04-29-2005 12:48 PM
|
|
Presumably hoop-jumping like this can't actually retard innovation in science? Or do you think that there might be a degree to which imaginitave, original science is stifled?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by mick, posted 04-29-2005 12:48 PM | | mick has not replied |
|
Tusko
Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: 10-01-2004
|
|
|
Message 48 of 85 (203905)
04-30-2005 6:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by Philip
04-29-2005 12:05 PM
|
|
Re: Conspirators
Hi Philip, I'm glad you don't think I'm a cruel hater; to be honest I don't think I'd be very good at it! It sounds as though you had a very negative experience of university. I'm interested with what you say here:
quote:
Meanwhile Physiology and Bio Professors voiced out disgust for Judaeo-Christian beliefs.
I find this quite strange, because I'd be very surprised if there weren't many Physiology and Bio professors who ARE Jewish and Christian. A belief that evolution isn't true, and a belief in a young earth are, as far as I'm aware, decidedly minority beliefs within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Consequently, there are many people who are religious, but without these particular minority beliefs. I guess that isn't much comfort for you though?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by Philip, posted 04-29-2005 12:05 PM | | Philip has not replied |
|
Tusko
Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: 10-01-2004
|
|
|
Message 49 of 85 (203908)
04-30-2005 6:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Limbo
04-29-2005 7:08 PM
|
|
I think you explain what it feels like to be a conspiracy creationist very well in your post. It doesn't sound very nice, when danger is all around. I don't think that it says anywhere in the bible that the bible is literally, word for word true (its a good job too, because then the contradictions that it appears to contain would seriously undermine any credibility that it would claim to have). As a result, I don't beleive that evolution actually does pose much of a threat to scripture. Most churches, including the Catholic church and the Anglican communion agree. It may surprise you to know, but the idea that the bible is inerrant - that it is literally true and not to some extent to be taken as metaphorical - is only a very recent phenomenon. (At least, that's what I've heard.) Another problem I have with mistrustful attitude towards evolution is that it doesn't seem consistent to me. When Christians see someone buy polyester and cotton (or whatever) blend trousers from a clothes shop, why don't they feel equally aggrieved that the devil is perverting people from the scripture by tricking people into mixed fibre garments? Why don't we see pickets outside the said clothes shops, and shouting protesters and so on? If you've decided that the Bible is true, why only do some of the things that it tells you to do? What do you think?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 7:08 PM | | Limbo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 10:03 AM | | Tusko has not replied |
|
Limbo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 50 of 85 (204082)
05-01-2005 10:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by Tusko
04-30-2005 6:45 AM
|
|
Hmm. Well, I think it depends alot on how much they know about the bible. If they know enough to know that there is nothing in there against polyester and cotton (or whatever) blend trousers (which there isn't) then they won't percieve a threat to their worldview. As to your 'why only do some of the things that it tells you to do' question...this also relates to how much they know. The majority of the bible is the old testament, right? Well, when Christ died he 'tore the veil', placing Christians under grace, NOT under the law of the old testament. So believers don't have to go around obeying all the hundreds of little things in the O.T. Living like a Christian isn't as hard and rigid and "churchy" as people like to think. Christ said that if something is evil to YOU, then it would be evil for you to do it. For instance, if someones religion says they can't eat a particular food because it is unclean, and they truly believe it, then they would be going againt their conscience to eat it...so by eating it they commited evil against themselves. However, someone else who believes its allright to eat that food would not go against their conscience to eat it, so eating it would not be an evil against themselves. IOW, there is alot of lee-way for the independant-minded Christian. Christ said its not what goes into the mouth that makes one unclean, its what comes out (words) The thing to remember about creationists is they are just trying to defend thier worldview. We ALL have a worldview, and we are ALL biased against other worldviews that threaten ours. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-01-2005 10:09 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by Tusko, posted 04-30-2005 6:45 AM | | Tusko has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by jar, posted 05-01-2005 12:24 PM | | Limbo has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 51 of 85 (204105)
05-01-2005 12:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Limbo
04-29-2005 7:08 PM
|
|
quote:
However, I think a more likely explanation for the conspiracy is the bias and bigotry we all have as humans.
The thing is, though, that the scientific method combined with the peer review process is a powerful method to eliminate much of our natural human bias. That's why " double blind" testing is considered the gold standard of drug effecacy testing, for example, and why journal editing and reviewing is often a volunteer or low-paying service one provides to one's field, and why journal editorships are never premenent positions. It's fine for you to propose that the conclusions of science are mostly biased, but now you have to show that they are. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-01-2005 12:22 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 7:08 PM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 52 of 85 (204106)
05-01-2005 12:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by Limbo
05-01-2005 10:03 AM
|
|
If they know enough to know that there is nothing in there against polyester and cotton (or whatever) blend trousers (which there isn't) then they won't percieve a threat to their worldview. Actually, it's Wool blend and it is an abomination. It most certainly is in there.
Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them. a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Leviticus 19:19
19: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 10:03 AM | | Limbo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 1:02 PM | | jar has replied |
|
Limbo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 53 of 85 (204117)
05-01-2005 1:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
05-01-2005 12:24 PM
|
|
quote:
Actually, it's Wool blend and it is an abomination. It most certainly is in there.
If its in the old testament, then as I said Christ tore that veil. Christians aren't bound to old testament law. If it's in the new testament...what book and verse is it? Here is an example of what I would call bias and bigotry in the scientific community: The Branding of a Heretic Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian? BY DAVID KLINGHOFFER Friday, January 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST Get The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion columnists, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and book and arts reviews.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by jar, posted 05-01-2005 12:24 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by jar, posted 05-01-2005 1:07 PM | | Limbo has replied | | | Message 57 by mick, posted 05-01-2005 9:11 PM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 54 of 85 (204118)
05-01-2005 1:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by Limbo
05-01-2005 1:02 PM
|
|
If its in the old testament, then as I said Christ tore that veil. Sorry but that is a totally unsupported assertion. Do you think that when Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Mark, Matthew, John, Mary, or Thomas spoke of scripture they were speaking of the New Testament? If so, perhaps you could explain? And you've brought up the DAVID KLINGHOFFER example before. It's crap and whining. Enough of these old cry-baby stories, bring us some NEW cry-baby stories.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 1:02 PM | | Limbo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 3:33 PM | | jar has replied |
|
Limbo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 55 of 85 (204135)
05-01-2005 3:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
05-01-2005 1:07 PM
|
|
quote:
Sorry but that is a totally unsupported assertion. Do you think that when Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Mark, Matthew, John, Mary, or Thomas spoke of scripture they were speaking of the New Testament? If so, perhaps you could explain? And you've brought up the DAVID KLINGHOFFER example before. It's crap and whining. Enough of these old cry-baby stories, bring us some NEW cry-baby stories.
I'm afraid you are suffering from a fundamental misconception of Christianity: the difference between Law and Grace. The old covenant was for the Jews only. For one to be under the Old covenant they need to convert to Judaism. In the new covenant, it is for both Jews and gentiles. In Eph.2 when we believe in Christ we becomes part of the body of Christ, not Judaism. God made a whole new entity called the church, the body of Christ, and filled it with his spirit to operate in his ways. And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom (Mark 15:37-38) What is the relationship of law to grace and how do we reconcile the commands in the OT law with grace. So many say the grace is there to keep the law, but the bible states in the NT that if you fail to keep one of the laws you have broken them all. This is the very reason we are under grace. In the OT there was grace under the surface of the law in the NT grace rules over the law. If you failed in one of the commands the way it was dealt with was by sacrifice. The NT we are not under grace to keep the law of the OT because the scripture makes it clear no one can. It is Jesus who kept the law where we could not he kept it absolutely perfectly. Every requirement small or large was kept by Christ. So Christ lived a perfect righteous life even to the point of his death on the cross. We are under grace because of his righteousness that is imputed or given to our account. So many people misunderstand which covenant they are living under and because of this there is so much confusion that they get condemned because they have not lived up to the perfect standard the law requires. Paul states in Rom. 6:14..." for you are not under law but under grace." He also makes it clear in Gal. 5:18 "if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-01-2005 03:41 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by jar, posted 05-01-2005 1:07 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by jar, posted 05-01-2005 4:04 PM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 56 of 85 (204139)
05-01-2005 4:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by Limbo
05-01-2005 3:33 PM
|
|
I'd love to reply since you simply don't have a clue what I understand about Christianity, but that is way OT for here. LOL But if you ever come up with some evidence for a conspiricy of scientists, do let us know. 
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 3:33 PM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
|
Message 57 of 85 (204194)
05-01-2005 9:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by Limbo
05-01-2005 1:02 PM
|
|
Here is an example of what I would call bias and bigotry in the scientific community I agree that the scientists involved in this story are highly biased. Members of the Smithsonian appear to be strongly biased against bad science. Truly deplorable. This message has been edited by mick, 05-01-2005 09:12 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 1:02 PM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
Limbo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 58 of 85 (204201)
05-01-2005 10:04 PM
|
|
|
The biggest clue
In a debate, the side which displays the most bigotry, hate, intolerance, ridicule, and anger is usually the loosing side. The side with something to hide (from the general public) Everywhere I look I see anti-ID hate. Hate is a reaction to fear. Why are they afraid? Fear is the mind-killer. Examine yourself. Discover your subconscious fear. Discover your hidden bias. Then maybe you can release yourself from the intellectual strangle-hold the scientific elite have on you. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-01-2005 10:06 PM
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 59 of 85 (204202)
05-01-2005 10:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by Limbo
05-01-2005 10:04 PM
|
|
Re: The biggest clue
Please offer support for your assertion of fear. Please offer evidence of Anti-ID Hate?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 10:04 PM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
Limbo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 60 of 85 (204224)
05-02-2005 12:46 AM
|
|
|
I appreciate the tremendous strides science has made. There is no doubt about the benefits to mankind as a result of science. Having said that, I’ve seen TONS of blogs, forum posts, articles, and court rulings that go far beyond being critical of the ideas behind ID to committing outright ad hominems and cheap, junior high pot shots. It seems that in some circles, saying a positive word about ID would be like claiming to be pro-Bush at a New York Times editorial staff meeting. For many, the very term ‘intelligent design’ evokes disdain, disgust, and borders on contempt. For some, it actually crosses over into contempt. Being anti-ID is almost like, well, a religious movement. If only the scientific community would do a better job of explaining to the public at large how science works, and the limitations of the scientific method, the alleged antagonism between science and religion would dissipate. The problem is not public ignorance, but public alienation. The reason for this alienation is the reluctance of most scientists to be as objective about themselves, their values, their goals, and their intellectual methods as they claim to be about interpreting specific data. For a variety of reasons...a litany of grievances that is so commonplace it need not be repeated here...a significant part of the general public has become distrustful of those goals, values and methods. If they are valid today, they need new validation and not simply reassertion. If they are superstitions, i.e., obsolete assumptions, left over from the recent past of science, they need rejection or revision. And the discussion of all this must be public, else it will carry no conviction to the people who provide the support for science. Then maybe the perception of 'conspiracy' would dissapear.
|
™ Version 4.2