Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
It would be impossible for me to function in a christian school. Especially chemistry class. There would be to many lab "accidents".
The great and all powerful religion thread!
- Thread starter cookiecutter
- Start date
It would be impossible for me to function in a christian school. Especially chemistry class. There would be to many lab "accidents".
Skepticism
Member
- Feb 14, 2006
- 2,177
- 4
- 38
I go to a catholic school, I'm not catholic, but I'm still in there. I just look at it as expanding my knowledge on the whole subject, though that rarely happens, as they teach the same thing every year. Good thing next 2 years are world religions classes instead, so I will actually learn something new.
AchrisK
Weakling
Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
I just saw him give a talk on C-Span Book TV. Pretty interesting.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
If you're going to read poor attempts at debunking science then atleast educate yourself on the material it is trying to debunk first. It's easy to be convinced by someone like Michael Behe if you do not actually know anything about the subject matter, mainly due to the way in which he wraps his pro-creationism rethoric in a thick coating of psuedo science which at first glance might make it seem very reasonable and believable if you are ignorant of the science (or lack thereof) behind it.
His target audience is not the scientific community, but rather creationists who want some kind of "scientific" backing to reaffirm that their beliefs are not irrational. Science is more than simply using big fancy words however, which is why none of his arguments have made so much as a dent in the evolution theory as far as the scientific community is concerned.
It's also interesting to note that even the department of science at the Lehigh University where Behe works as professor of biochemisty openly distances itself from his views. That should give you a clue as to the level of "science" contained within his books.
And here is Richard Dawkins' (an expert in the field of evolutionary biology) scathing review of that book http://richarddawkins.net/article,1360,n,n
AchrisK
Weakling
I don't know that much, but a good portion of that "book review" is personal attacks and condescending phrases. That's kinda cheap, and his review would carry more authority if he just left that sort of childish talk out. Just like in business and law and any thing else, you give the facts without letting your emotions or personal feeling taint what you are saying. Pure fact, if it is enough to debunk something, and indeed it should be, is much more powerful than personal attacks. But sadly personal attacks from evolutionsists when talking about anyone who embraces any kind of creationism are common. Funny how in Behe's own responses he typically does not sink to that level, but sticks to the facts.
Another portion of his review is attacking Intelligent Design. Ok, you can attack that all day by calling it unscientific. I understand that "if not A then B" is oversimplified and is not proof of creationism or ID. So let's throw out ID for the sake of discussion.
But if there are valid "if not A" statements, it is unscientific for scientists to dismiss them as the rantings of a creationist. What do you do with the "not A"s? It seems that evolutions just want to deny they exist. Most evolutionists are so protective of their beloved theory that they fail to even consider its shortcomings (at least in public).
Here are some replies to that "scathing review".
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/dawkins_attacks_behe_in_new_yo.html
Behe's response:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_dp_pdp/105-1176708-6988463
Another portion of his review is attacking Intelligent Design. Ok, you can attack that all day by calling it unscientific. I understand that "if not A then B" is oversimplified and is not proof of creationism or ID. So let's throw out ID for the sake of discussion.
But if there are valid "if not A" statements, it is unscientific for scientists to dismiss them as the rantings of a creationist. What do you do with the "not A"s? It seems that evolutions just want to deny they exist. Most evolutionists are so protective of their beloved theory that they fail to even consider its shortcomings (at least in public).
Here are some replies to that "scathing review".
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/dawkins_attacks_behe_in_new_yo.html
Behe's response:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_dp_pdp/105-1176708-6988463
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Behe got what he deserved. He's manipulating the facts and science behind evolution and using blatant untruths in order to support his own preconceived hypothesis and is marketing this as a scientifically valid tool. This is fraudulent and an affront to the scientific community, so a bit of disgust and vitriol in response to such an outrageous assertion is justified.
And seriously, actually LEARN about evolution before you try to point to people debunking it, especially people on amazon. And don't pretend that you actually keep up on the scientific field enough to know that "evolutionists...fail to even consider its shortcomings (at least in public). Especially in light of recent studies that were published that put into question the "Out Of Africa" theory and the evolutionary tree. These were on fucking YAHOO NEWS, easily available to the average American, so nobody is trying to hide that we don't have all the answers yet.
And seriously, actually LEARN about evolution before you try to point to people debunking it, especially people on amazon. And don't pretend that you actually keep up on the scientific field enough to know that "evolutionists...fail to even consider its shortcomings (at least in public). Especially in light of recent studies that were published that put into question the "Out Of Africa" theory and the evolutionary tree. These were on fucking YAHOO NEWS, easily available to the average American, so nobody is trying to hide that we don't have all the answers yet.
Yeah Richard Dawkins likes to be a condescending dick. That's too bad since it often tends to defeat his own cause (he is the preaching to the choir kind of atheist basically, not the kind who will ever convince a firm believer of anything). But it doesn't change the fact that his argumentations are backed up by scientific fact*. And Behe's civil "sticking to the facts" reply doesn't change the fact that he is wrong and his arguments do not (hence the fact that he consistently bypasses the scientific peer review process and writes his books solely with the scientifically uneducated layman's audience in mind). The fact that Behe tends to remain civil despite having been ridiculed and ostracized by his peers may say something about his personal fortitude and kindness, but it does not make anything he says more right.
As for why evolutionists more often resort to personal attacks (if that is infact true, I've read plenty of material by creationist fundamentalists that was equally uncivil), that entirely depends on the person obviously. Scientists are human beings just like anyone else and some of them will display more patience and restraint than others. However I can entirely understand that some of them at some point simply get fed up with the constant misinformation campaign led by creationists who systematically "abuse" science to try and convince the general public that their views are on par with those of the scientific community and therefor should be allowed into the schools and biology text books. Behe certainly is one of the people belonging to that particular group of writers. They misuse or fail to understand scientific theories, consistently use the "argument from ignorance" (a particularly potent strategy when your target audience is also ignorant on the subject matter at hand), erecting strawmen only to cut them down instantly in orther to try and convince less knowledgable people that their argument is just as valid as those of the evolutionary scientists. I can't blame some scientists for getting really fucking tired of that.
* the claim of the first source that The God Delusion contains no science is fucking laughable beyond belief, it is full of scientific explanations either by Dawkins himself or quotations from other scientists and direct referenes to scientific publications to back them up, something no creationist work has ever done (or been able to do, on account of there being no science involved in ID).
This is just an utterly ridiculous claim. Science is all about the open exchange of ideas and peer review. You are just under the delusion that Behe is or should be part of this process when he himself has excluded himself from it by A) resorting to unscientific methods and B) completely avoiding the peer review of other scientists and instead targetting his publications directly to the layman public (for obvious reasons, they cannot debunk his ridiculous theories as the science community could, and has).
The very fundamentals of scientific discourse prevent what you are proposing there because it is an open field where anyone can participate. A single scientist who came up with theory X might end up being stubborn and petty and not immediately accepting it when his theory is disproven (that certainly has happened in the past because again, scientists are only human and subject to the same whims as you or me) but the scientific community as a whole is only interested in the facts. If a theory is proven false then it will be accepted as such. So far there has been no such proof offered up by Behe or anyone else. All attempts at poking holes in the theory have been easily disproven. Again, the fact that even Behe's own faculty is distancing itself from him should atleast give you a hint that what he is doing has little to do with science.
As for why evolutionists more often resort to personal attacks (if that is infact true, I've read plenty of material by creationist fundamentalists that was equally uncivil), that entirely depends on the person obviously. Scientists are human beings just like anyone else and some of them will display more patience and restraint than others. However I can entirely understand that some of them at some point simply get fed up with the constant misinformation campaign led by creationists who systematically "abuse" science to try and convince the general public that their views are on par with those of the scientific community and therefor should be allowed into the schools and biology text books. Behe certainly is one of the people belonging to that particular group of writers. They misuse or fail to understand scientific theories, consistently use the "argument from ignorance" (a particularly potent strategy when your target audience is also ignorant on the subject matter at hand), erecting strawmen only to cut them down instantly in orther to try and convince less knowledgable people that their argument is just as valid as those of the evolutionary scientists. I can't blame some scientists for getting really fucking tired of that.
* the claim of the first source that The God Delusion contains no science is fucking laughable beyond belief, it is full of scientific explanations either by Dawkins himself or quotations from other scientists and direct referenes to scientific publications to back them up, something no creationist work has ever done (or been able to do, on account of there being no science involved in ID).
This is just an utterly ridiculous claim. Science is all about the open exchange of ideas and peer review. You are just under the delusion that Behe is or should be part of this process when he himself has excluded himself from it by A) resorting to unscientific methods and B) completely avoiding the peer review of other scientists and instead targetting his publications directly to the layman public (for obvious reasons, they cannot debunk his ridiculous theories as the science community could, and has).
The very fundamentals of scientific discourse prevent what you are proposing there because it is an open field where anyone can participate. A single scientist who came up with theory X might end up being stubborn and petty and not immediately accepting it when his theory is disproven (that certainly has happened in the past because again, scientists are only human and subject to the same whims as you or me) but the scientific community as a whole is only interested in the facts. If a theory is proven false then it will be accepted as such. So far there has been no such proof offered up by Behe or anyone else. All attempts at poking holes in the theory have been easily disproven. Again, the fact that even Behe's own faculty is distancing itself from him should atleast give you a hint that what he is doing has little to do with science.
AchrisK
Weakling
Really? Like what?
Have you read the Behe books?
Ok, I will try to learn more about evolution.
What books do you recommend?
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Behe makes me very angry. He creates a strawman of an unrealistically simple view of evolution. Uses big words like "Irreducible" publishes a book and calls it science, when actually it is just lying. AchrisK check out that talkorigins FAQ I posted a little while ago. It will quickly give you the truth about Behe and his ideas.
I hate when religions think they got a monopoly on God and belittle their competition. I had to go to church this morning and the preacher was so obsessed with him having the "true gospel" and that he belittled the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses when they have just as right as being true as the Baptists are, I just think there's seriously something wrong when people think they got a monopoly on God and think they know everything about religion and the afterlife when their only proof of God is that "he works in the heart and they can feel him" and that is just your mind afterall.
^
Exactly, does that story of Jesus's bones being dug up have any truth to it?
Me and some people discussed this before, we agreed that even if it was true the chruch has got too much money in this religion and would make up som excuse or cover-up to keep the religion alive.
Exactly, does that story of Jesus's bones being dug up have any truth to it?Me and some people discussed this before, we agreed that even if it was true the chruch has got too much money in this religion and would make up som excuse or cover-up to keep the religion alive.
Hatebreeder
Pizzicato Heartstrings
^
Me and some people discussed this before, we agreed that even if it was true the chruch has got too much money in this religion and would make up som excuse or cover-up to keep the religion alive.
I've been saying this for years.
Hatebreeder
Pizzicato Heartstrings
The Jesus tomb is irrevelevant, in my opinion. And if it's his bones they found, then that destroys all of Christianity. If he left behind bones, then he obviously did not resurrect, and thus, he was not the "Son of God".
I HOPE they found Jesus' bones.
^Me too, but I cna't imagine my area without Christianity. They don't call this place the Bible Belt for no reason.
