Scientist passed over for job because of his faith

[TheTrueCentrist]

Many people are doing it wrong. God is not a cosmic slot machine.

May I direct your attention to a recent CA forum thread?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=529395

Condom distribution leads to higher rates of HIV infection, abstinence leads to lower rates of HIV infection. Science undisputedly affirms this fact.

It is good that you recognize that the question is a scientific one, not a religious one. It is true that abstinence is more effective in preventing the spread of HIV than condoms, but that condom distribution leads to higher rates of HIV is hardly “undisputed.” From what I’ve read, condoms are ineffective but neither do they exacerbate the problem.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece

 

[1holycatholic]

May I direct your attention to a recent CA forum thread?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=529395

So what?

Consensus non facit veritatem.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So what?

Consensus non facit veritatem.

I thought you might like to go inform them that “God is not a cosmic slot machine.”

 

[1holycatholic]

It is good that you recognize that the question is a scientific one, not a religious one. It is true that abstinence is more effective in preventing the spread of HIV than condoms, but that condom distribution leads to higher rates of HIV is hardly “undisputed.” From what I’ve read, condoms are ineffective but neither do they exacerbate the problem.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece

It’s a moral issue as well. Condom use is intrinsically evil.

 

[no2masters4life]

Expelled was a terrible film, did you know that the filmmakers lied to some of the scientists in order to get the statements they wanted? Moreover, it was filled with factual inaccuracies. For example, it claims Richard Sternberg was fired for allowing a paper which supported ID to be published. In reality he was not an employee, nor removed from his unpaid position until 2007. He was, however, criticized for not following appropriate peer review procedures.

I think Ed Brayton said it best:
“The intelligent design (ID) movement has long labored to inculcate two mutually exclusive falsehoods in the minds of the public: A) that ID is a purely scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion; and B) that any objection to ID is evidence of bias and discrimination against religion.”

I’m going to agree with True Centrist. I felt uncomfortable about “Expelled…” to the point of not seeing it. I could just tell Ben Stein likes picking fights with small fish. If he wants to overturn the Theory of Evolution, he needs a falsifiable counter-theory. How does one falsify the existence of God? Not likely I’m going to try!

 

[1holycatholic]

Moreover, it was filled with factual inaccuracies.

It’s ironic that skeptics aren’t skeptical about many scientifically unfounded assertions they make regarding the theory they are defending.

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m going to agree with True Centrist. I felt uncomfortable about “Expelled…” to the point of not seeing it. I could just tell Ben Stein likes picking fights with small fish. If he wants to overturn the Theory of Evolution, he needs a falsifiable counter-theory.

I haven’t seen the film.

How does one falsify the existence of God? Not likely I’m going to try!

Easy - show that the existence of God entails a contradiction. Though many have tried nobody’s ever been able to do it.

God necessarily exists. The nonexistence of God entails a contradiction.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

It’s ironic that skeptics aren’t skeptical about many scientifically unfounded assertions they make regarding the theory they are defending.

I’d love to hear what parts of the theory you think are unfounded. The problems with ID are numerous. There is no evidence to support it, for one thing. Another problem is that it can’t be used to make useful predictions. Evolution, for example, can and does predict which animals would be best used in drug trials. It also predicts things like drug resistance and can improves some aspects of gene sequencing. In addition it gives scientists ideas about specific areas to study by making suggestions like this

 

[1holycatholic]

I’d love to hear what parts of the theory you think are unfounded. The problems with ID are numerous. There is no evidence to support it, for one thing. Another problem is that it can’t be used to make useful predictions. Evolution, for example, can and does predict which animals would be best used in drug trials. It also predicts things like drug resistance and can improves some aspects of gene sequencing. In addition it gives scientists ideas about specific areas to study by making suggestions like this

don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series.html

The fossil record shows minor variations, but not major variations, that’s not disputed. Further, there is no fossil record of transitional forms, hence the eager and uncritical initial acceptance of fraudulent evidence like the Piltdown Man. The fossil record show an explosion of life forms appearing fully formed around the same time.

The problem is that Darwin’s theory has been conflated into the creation myth of scientism and has been exempted from critical scientific examination by it’s proponents.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series.html

The fossil record shows minor variations, but not major variations, that’s not disputed. Further, there is no fossil record of transitional forms, hence the eager and uncritical initial acceptance of fraudulent evidence like the Piltdown Man. The fossil record show an explosion of life forms appearing fully formed around the same time.

The problem is that Darwin’s theory has been conflated into the creation myth of scientism and has been exempted from critical scientific examination by it’s proponents.

I’m not 100% sure, but the link you provide seems to disprove your assertion. It contains this graph. Minor variation is represented by the width of the Gaussian peak, while major variation is demonstrated by the fact that two separate peaks emerge.

Also, the very same website has this to say about transitional forms:
don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_groups.html

While the Piltdown Man was an unfortunate incident, it is notable that it was eventually suspected to be a fraud because it did not fit with other discoveries in the area based on predictions made by evolution.

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m not 100% sure, but the link you provide seems to disprove your assertion. It contains this graph. Minor variation is represented by the width of the Gaussian peak, while major variation is demonstrated by the fact that two
separate peaks emerge.

Those aren’t major variations.

Also, the very same website has this to say about transitional forms:
don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_groups.html

While the Piltdown Man was an unfortunate incident, it is notable that it was eventually suspected to be a fraud because it did not fit with other discoveries in the area based on predictions made by evolution.

Evolution doesn’t predict anything. Survivors survive is a tautology, not a predictive model.

The fact that Piltdown Man even generated interest is indicative of the lack of corroborating evidence in the fossil record.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Evolution doesn’t predict anything. Survivors survive is a tautology, not a predictive model.

The fact that Piltdown Man even generated interest is indicative of the lack of corroborating evidence in the fossil record.

I have already given plenty of examples of predictions made by evolution which turned out to be true, you can find them here. Some highlights:
"There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found. "

"Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn’t matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off. "

"Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found. "

To deny that these exist, i.e. to deny that evolution makes falsifiable claims, is willfully ignorant.

While you would have been right back in 1912 when the Piltdown Man was first “discovered,” new fossil findings in the subsequent years were precisely what led to suspicion of the fraud. Could you list some species we know very little about? Of course. However, for all the species we do know about, their history is well described by evolution. Moreover, there is no reason to suspect that species we know less about are “special” in that they would exhibit non-evolutionary behaviors. Can you give one falsifiable claim that ID has made, let alone one that was correct? It is easy to perpetually probe the weaknesses of a theory, but don’t propose throwing out evolution until your theory shows that it is also useful.

 

[kenofken]

I’d love to hear what parts of the theory you think are unfounded. The problems with ID are numerous. There is no evidence to support it, for one thing. Another problem is that it can’t be used to make useful predictions. Evolution, for example, can and does predict which animals would be best used in drug trials. It also predicts things like drug resistance and can improves some aspects of gene sequencing. In addition it gives scientists ideas about specific areas to study by making suggestions like this

ID is not science at all. It is put out by people who feel compelled by faith to read Genesis literally. They don’t have the courage of conviction to embrace a faith that demands irrationality, so they seek to paper it over with a veneer of scientific respectability. They don’t believe in the validity of the scientific method or even of the ability of reason to discover the natural world, but they’ve become adept at using scientific jargon. Their work is not grounded in valid methods or logic. It uses conspiracy theory standards of evidence. It cannot be seen as science at all because all of it’s explanations resort to magical or supernatural causes. It is also not science because it cannot offer any model for understanding the world. It is an appeal to a kind of intellectual nihilism which says that creation in irreducably complex and that nothing can be known except for arguments from the authority of their own interpretation of the Old Testament.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

ID is not science at all. It is put out by people who feel compelled by faith to read Genesis literally. They don’t have the courage of conviction to embrace a faith that demands irrationality, so they seek to paper it over with a veneer of scientific respectability. They don’t believe in the validity of the scientific method or even of the ability of reason to discover the natural world, but they’ve become adept at using scientific jargon. Their work is not grounded in valid methods or logic. It uses conspiracy theory standards of evidence. It cannot be seen as science at all because all of it’s explanations resort to magical or supernatural causes. It is also not science because it cannot offer any model for understanding the world. It is an appeal to a kind of intellectual nihilism which says that creation in irreducably complex and that nothing can be known except for arguments from the authority of their own interpretation of the Old Testament.

I agree, but using that language won’t win you any converts.

 

[1holycatholic]

I have already given plenty of examples of predictions made by evolution which turned out to be true, you can find them here. Some highlights:

“Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.”

Why aren’t these series in evidence? Again, Piltdown Man illustrates the “scientism of the gaps” that drives the distortions of Darwin.

How do you predict randomness? If I could accurately predict randomness I’d move to Monaco.

 

[1holycatholic]

ID is not science at all. It is put out by people who feel compelled by faith to read Genesis literally.

ID isn’t science, but then Darwinism is bad science uncritically promoted.

ID and Darwinism are the creation myths needed by fundamentalists.

 

[kenofken]

I agree, but using that language won’t win you any converts.

I don’t mean to win converts and I don’t even imagine that ID advocates are amendable to persuasion by debate. Many of them would not accept evolution if God sent them a hand-signed memo, let alone from any argument or evidence I could muster. No, my aim is to discredit the pseudo-science which ID is and always has been. My work is aimed at helping ill-informed but well meaning people on school boards, curriculum committees and the general public see through ID’s lies that it is a legitimate scientific theory which isn’t being “given equal time” because of some vast atheist Darwinian conspiracy.

Once people gain even a basic understanding of how science works (and does not), almost all thinking people who don’t share ID’s ideology can see through the ruse. The decline of technical literacy in this country is already just about the worst of any industrial nation,and we are rapidly being eclipsed by developing nations like India and China. Allowing ID to go unchallenged will not only accelerate our decline, it will plunge us into a Medieval backwardness from which we may never recover.

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t mean to win converts and I don’t even imagine that ID advocates are amendable to persuasion by debate. Many of them would not accept evolution if God sent them a hand-signed memo, let alone from any argument or evidence I could muster. No, my aim is to discredit the pseudo-science which ID is and always has been. My work is aimed at helping ill-informed but well meaning people on school boards, curriculum committees and the general public see through ID’s lies that it is a legitimate scientific theory which isn’t being “given equal time” because of some vast atheist Darwinian conspiracy.

Once people gain even a basic understanding of how science works (and does not), almost all thinking people who don’t share ID’s ideology can see through the ruse. The decline of technical literacy in this country is already just about the worst of any industrial nation,and we are rapidly being eclipsed by developing nations like India and China. Allowing ID to go unchallenged will not only accelerate our decline, it will plunge us into a Medieval backwardness from which we may never recover.

That’s a red-herring. Nothing Darwin published supports atheism in any way, shape or form.

Many defend bad science because they imagine it supports their metaphysical view. This applies to fundamentalists of all stripes - atheist or theist.

 

[Robert_Bay]

NOTICE

This thread is wandering

Please return to the topic of the original post

 

[no2masters4life]

Those aren’t major variations.

Evolution doesn’t predict anything. Survivors survive is a tautology, not a predictive model.

The fact that Piltdown Man even generated interest is indicative of the lack of corroborating evidence in the fossil record.

**

What this thread is arguing is whether a science teacher should rightfully be passed over for Creationist beliefs. In my view, a U.S. science teacher has the obligation to teach what the National Academy of Sciences views as real science. And until Darwinian evolution is proven incontrovertably wrong, the teacher should teach the theory as the best explanation of our origins. The theory has been fought over for more than 100 years and no peerage scientist has proved it any less of an explanation for human origins than Darwin originally conjectured. To say that it is “bad science” is ludicrous. It’s incredibly good science to stand up to such tortuous scrutiny for so long, against a sceptical world community of fellows who would love to smash it if they could. Yes, there are holes in the theory, but not nearly as many as ID or Creationist theology. It isn’t very good science at all not to teach the theory, or to teach what a person may feel is wrong with the theory along side of it, as if that particular science teacher has dissertations in paleontology, genetics, geology, and so forth. Hey, when she’s done telling you what’s wrogn with evolutionary biology, why not petition her thoughts on modern medical practices! Maybe she can remove your gall bladder. I mean, how hard could it be!

Piltdown Man? Look, ID scientists did not expose Piltdown Man or any other early human predecessor. It was the checks and balances of the Darwinist scientific community that brought this scandal to everyone’s attention. Atheism is Darwin misappropriated. I believe Darwin was Christian and I once saw his name written on the ceiling of a Protestant chapel that honored great Christian scholars. He was no atheist and would not have approved of it.

In a science classroom, there is no place for an experiment in which a prayer is invoked to get God to boil the water. The water boils whether you pray over the flask or not. This does not invalidate the existence of God or the natural order. It means that God’s laws, which govern the physical universe, are not subject to prayerful petition and cannot be falsified.

And I am not sure I would want to have the “equal time for Bibliocentric Worldviews” in a science classroom, where my beliefs could be ridiculed under the guise of rational skepticism.

Well, that’s my $.02.

N2M4L