Teaching Evolution in OK

[thesummerqueen]

Well, Passionatefool, there you go:

http://honest-ab.blogspot.com/2012/02/te...ahoma.html

(Disclaimer - I'm not defending creationists. I'd just like to point out there's some hope even in the crazy places of semi-rational to rational people being able to have courteous discourse.)

[Phil]

Well, Passionatefool, there you go:

http://honest-ab.blogspot.com/2012/02/te...ahoma.html

(Disclaimer - I'm not defending creationists. I'd just like to point out there's some hope even in the crazy places of semi-rational to rational people being able to have courteous discourse.)

I agree with his sentiment that science is science and is not an impediment to anybodies faith. It becomes a problem when one insists that their faith is scientific, reasonable and logical (if it was, it wouldn't be called faith) so they can try to shove their bullshit down others throats. One of the guys I work with is a deist that disbelieves in evolution (in a lab of all places) but he is honest about it and says his belief is faith not science.

[Napoléon]

but he is honest about it and says his belief is faith not science.

This sort of thinking would fry my brain.

So he knows his beliefs are unscientific, yet he believes in them anyway, whilst knowing what the scientific method is?

Willing stupidity.

[Phil]

but he is honest about it and says his belief is faith not science.

This sort of thinking would fry my brain.

So he knows his beliefs are unscientific, yet he believes in them anyway, whilst knowing what the scientific method is?

Willing stupidity.

Go figure, he has a masters in chemistry. As I said though, faith has nothing to do with science. If you really want to read something that will make your head spin, here is a quote from a Harvard educated PhD that has actually studied fossils and geology.

I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

[Napoléon]

---

Yes the picture should say foolishness

---

[Anomalocaris]

I agree with his sentiment that science is science and is not an impediment to anybodies faith. It becomes a problem when one insists that their faith is scientific, reasonable and logical (if it was, it wouldn't be called faith) so they can try to shove their bullshit down others throats. One of the guys I work with is a deist that disbelieves in evolution (in a lab of all places) but he is honest about it and says his belief is faith not science.

Of course science is an unbearable threat to both faith and the prestige of faith, otherwise the faithful wouldn't try so hard to fight science while attempting to avail themselves of the prestige of science by flying a false science flag

[Phil]

Of course science is an unbearable threat to both faith and the prestige of faith, otherwise the faithful wouldn't try so hard to fight science while attempting to avail themselves of the prestige of science by flying a false science flag

No, science is a threat to fundamentalism and a view that Scripture (Bible, Koran or whatever religious text you prefer) it is not a threat to faith itself as can be seen by the comparatively few actual scientists that have religious faith.

[Anomalocaris]

Of course science is an unbearable threat to both faith and the prestige of faith, otherwise the faithful wouldn't try so hard to fight science while attempting to avail themselves of the prestige of science by flying a false science flag

No, science is a threat to fundamentalism and a view that Scripture (Bible, Koran or whatever religious text you prefer) it is not a threat to faith itself as can be seen by the comparatively few actual scientists that have religious faith.

No it can't.

I personally knew a highly respected applied physicist whose contribution to the invention of the MRI earned him nominations for a Nobel Prize in physics by nobel laureates in Physics. The MRI inventor was also an outspoken creationists and biblical fundamentalist. In the end, Nobel Prize was shared between a few other co-inventors of the MRI, but denied to him, despite the fact that in academic circles it is thought that his contribution surpassed those of his collegues. It is thought that recognition was given to others in preference to him due to his well-known fundamentalist beliefs.

So the fact that there are actual scientists who holds a certain view by no means indicates the view can be accommodated to science. Training in science improves the odds that the trainees would adopt measures against intellectual dissonance in his private world view. It does not guaranty it.

[Phil]

Of course science is an unbearable threat to both faith and the prestige of faith, otherwise the faithful wouldn't try so hard to fight science while attempting to avail themselves of the prestige of science by flying a false science flag

No, science is a threat to fundamentalism and a view that Scripture (Bible, Koran or whatever religious text you prefer) it is not a threat to faith itself as can be seen by the comparatively few actual scientists that have religious faith.

No it can't.

I personally knew a highly respected applied physicist whose contribution to the invention of the MRI earned him nominations for a Nobel Prize in physics by nobel laureates in Physics. The MRI inventor was also an outspoken creationists and biblical fundamentalist. In the end, Nobel Prize was shared between a few other co-inventors of the MRI, but denied to him, despite the fact that in academic circles it is thought that his contribution surpassed those of his collegues. It is thought that recognition was given to others in preference to him due to his well-known fundamentalist beliefs.

So the fact that there are actual scientists who holds a certain view by no means indicates the view can be accommodated to science. Training in science improves the odds that the trainees would adopt measures against intellectual dissonance in his private world view. It does not guaranty it.

Did you even read what I wrote? Who the hell said anything about accommodation? I specifically said science is not compatible with fundamentalism. Religious faith does not have to be fundamentalism AS CAN BE SEEN by the real scientists that have religious faith (not fundamentalism you illiterate bastard).

[thesummerqueen]

On the late great Irreligiosophy podcast, ex-Mormon Dr. Chuck always said that one of the biggest things that eroded his faith was medical school and his internship. Everyone knew he was a Mormon and his superiors were constantly questioning his decisions and the basis behind them. He was asked for evidence so much it sort of fucked him over as far as faith.