|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2008 04:57:46 PM · #676 |
Originally posted by Flash:
don't try to paint your argument for the naturalness of homosexuality as observed in humans as some caricature for a smartass comparison from a slanted weighted comparison that does not address the point. |
Actually, that (and the resulting absurdity) was YOUR argument. While homosexuality may have genetic roots, YOU were the only one to suggest that all things natural must be legal. Cannibalism and theft can be observed in nature too, but that doesn't mean they should be condoned. Laws are not determined by what's natural, but by what is acceptable to contemporary society (usually a matter of whether it hurts others).
Originally posted by Flash:
The only persons who follow the laws of disarmamanet are the law abiding. The criminals don't follow those laws. |
Um, yeah... let's just ask everybody if they are law abiding citizens before we let them have a gun. That worked out great at Virginia Tech. The direct correlation between less guns and less gun violence can be summed up in one word: DUH. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 05:15:58 PM · #677 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You cannot both claim that homosexuality is natural because animals behave homosexually, and then claim that only those traits that support your choices are valid. |
Sure you can. Homosexuality is natural behaviour insofar as it is observable in nature. Laziness, sloth, killing, abandoning young, perhaps even inter-species copulation are all natural behaviours insofar as they are observable in nature. So? Does that mean that the "bad" ones have to be taken wholly into account in human society along with the "good" ones because it's some kind of weird all-or-nothing game of logic? Nonsense. Your attempt to describe homosexuality in human beings as an "unnatural choice" has failed. That description is demeaning, grounded in neither experience nor fact, and unsupported by evidence. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 05:23:27 PM · #678 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Flash, if you can't see the illogic and abhorrence of equating private, adult, consensual conduct to child abuse and bestiality, then you really must be considered clueless. That you can also make such comparisons while claiming not to be homophobic is pathetic. |
This is an argument. Plain and simple. Why is sex with a youngster (even a consenting youngster) wrong? Why is sex with an animal wrong. They are both duplicated within the very group that some here have argued displayed evidence of proof of mans homosexual nature and its normalcy. My pint is you can't change the argument in midstream. Which many here are trying to do, especially when it appears to show association with behaviors that some here find offensive. I am simply surprised and asking why is one behavior not acceptable and another is? |
I don't know why I'm even going to attempt this, since you have proven yourself time and again invulnerable to reasoned argument, while holding yourself securely ensconced in your own labyrinthine nests of illogic, ignorance, hubris, and self-reinforced delusion. You make grand claims to your own rationality and reasoning ability, but your arguments -- to be more precise, screeds -- demonstrate that you actually have little understanding or capacity in this regard. (I'm sounding harsh here, even to myself, but I think the preceding description is more than justified, and, given your recent statements I think that the time for polite tolerance has passed.)
But just to spit into the wind one more time -
Sex with those unwilling or unable to give consent is wrong because in engaging in this conduct you are willfully using another in ways that one would never willingly accept for oneself. (Look up Kant's categorical imperative.) Children and animals have no ability to consent. Even children who believe they are consenting, do not have the moral and intellectual capacity to provide true consent. Society has generally decided that the age in which a person has that capacity is somewhere in the late teens. Human history and experience has shown that children who are forced or coerced into engaging in sexual relationships with adults are harmed by the encounter, often deeply. None of these concerns are present in adult, consensual, same-sex intimate relationships.
Further, in regard to sexual relationships with animals, there are further moral concerns and practical health risks. We have always intuitively mistrusted persons who would engage in sexual conduct with animals. Modern psychotherapy has shown that this moral intuition was correct and that such conduct is indicative of maladaptive personalities and other unhealthy, anti-social, and harmful behaviors. Psychotherapy used to describe homosexual conduct as maladaptive as well, but this flowed from religious-based objections and tautological thinking - homosexuality was defined a priori as "bad" so homosexual conduct and those who engaged in it must be "bad." These deductions have not stood against actual examination and observance and so the psychological consensus on homosexuality shifted to acknowledge that it was not harmful or "deviant" conduct.
Lastly, in regard to practical objections to sex with animals, there are very real and potentially severe health risks involved with such conduct. Social and personal sanction against such conduct is more than justified.
Note that if you are going to take the above and try and make a health risk argument against homosexual conduct, you will have to have some argument for why the risks of conduct that occurs within both heterosexual and homosexual intimate relationships is somehow dangerous in one context while not being dangerous in another. (Since, as Kinsey so clearly showed us, all conduct that exists in homosexual relationships has direct and relational analogues in heterosexual relationships.) In other words, any health argument you might make against homosexual conduct would apply equally to heterosexual conduct.
So there you go, a reasoned, evidence-based argument for why your analogy is both false on the facts and specious in implication. I don't know why I bother, however, because I'm sure you will come back with some raving retort that mischaracterizes what I have said, misconstrues the argument entirely, or in some other novel way appears to attack my post without in actuality engaging with its substance.
I have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt up to this point. I now see I was wrong to do so. Unless I am given reason to change my mind, I will no longer be engaging you in these forums. I would encourage all of my fellow scientific thinkers to consider doing the same as giving considered attention to your posts provides them with a credibility to which they are decidedly undeserving.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2008 09:07:40 AM · #679 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
don't try to paint your argument for the naturalness of homosexuality as observed in humans as some caricature for a smartass comparison from a slanted weighted comparison that does not address the point. |
Actually, that (and the resulting absurdity) was YOUR argument. While homosexuality may have genetic roots, YOU were the only one to suggest that all things natural must be legal. Cannibalism and theft can be observed in nature too, but that doesn't mean they should be condoned. Laws are not determined by what's natural, but by what is acceptable to contemporary society (usually a matter of whether it hurts others).
|
So when contemporary society says that homosexuality is wrong (like cannibalism or theft) then that is the criteria we should go by? This is a far departure from your earlier position that homosexuality is natural/normal due to its observance in nature. This uncharacteristically reads like the religious positions against homosexuality that you have adamantly argued against. Your claim of "contemporary society" does need a definition. Are you speaking specifically of western societies, all the world, just within the last 50 years or the last couple of centuries? Does it include China, Iran, or the contemporary societies within deeply religious communities? If the contemporary society deems child brides as acceptable, is it then OK?
The problem I have with your response is that is raises many more questions than it answers - questions that you would ask me if I gave that answer. |
|
|
|
04/22/2008 09:13:57 AM · #680 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
The only persons who follow the laws of disarmamanet are the law abiding. The criminals don't follow those laws. |
Um, yeah... let's just ask everybody if they are law abiding citizens before we let them have a gun. That worked out great at Virginia Tech. The direct correlation between less guns and less gun violence can be summed up in one word: DUH. |
I can't access your link as it is restricted on my terminal. I trust it is not a glowing report on how many hundreds of thousands of times that firearms have been successfully used to thwart an assault, robbery, rape or murder. It is simply more evidence of a continued use of biased slanted misleading information, the same type of biased slanted misleading information you charge "believers" in using to promote God. If you require a high standard of proof from those arguing position "x", then I would expect you to use the same standard on yourself. |
|
|
|
04/22/2008 09:17:24 AM · #681 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I don't know why I'm even going to attempt this, |
I plan to address this post; however it will take some time. Suffice to say that this post of yours is worth my time and reply. |
|
|
|
04/22/2008 09:52:39 AM · #682 |
Originally posted by Flash:
So when contemporary society says that homosexuality is wrong (like cannibalism or theft) then that is the criteria we should go by? This is a far departure from your earlier position that homosexuality is natural/normal due to its observance in nature. |
It's a departure from a claim that you made up on your own. The discussion on whether homosexuality is natural/normal was raised to counter the medieval suggestion that same-sex attraction is a "free will" decision. Legality is a separate issue based on contemporary social acceptance. 200 years ago human slavery was accepted by society as perfectly legal (and even a Biblical right). Now it's not.
Most people like vanilla ice cream, but some can't stand it. Is that a choice to be mandated by law, or something physiological in their tastebuds or brain that makes vanilla repulsive to them? It doesn't hurt anyone to let people eat chocolate if that's what they prefer.
That said, I'm with Shutterpuppy. Logic and reason are clearly lost on you and I'll no longer waste my time. |
|
|
|
04/22/2008 12:02:46 PM · #683 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Flash, if you can't see the illogic and abhorrence of equating private, adult, consensual conduct to child abuse and bestiality, then you really must be considered clueless. That you can also make such comparisons while claiming not to be homophobic is pathetic. |
This is an argument. Plain and simple. Why is sex with a youngster (even a consenting youngster) wrong? Why is sex with an animal wrong. They are both duplicated within the very group that some here have argued displayed evidence of proof of mans homosexual nature and its normalcy. My pint is you can't change the argument in midstream. Which many here are trying to do, especially when it appears to show association with behaviors that some here find offensive. I am simply surprised and asking why is one behavior not acceptable and another is? |
I don't know why I'm even going to attempt this, since you have proven yourself time and again invulnerable to reasoned argument, while holding yourself securely ensconced in your own labyrinthine nests of illogic, ignorance, hubris, and self-reinforced delusion. You make grand claims to your own rationality and reasoning ability, but your arguments -- to be more precise, screeds -- demonstrate that you actually have little understanding or capacity in this regard. (I'm sounding harsh here, even to myself, but I think the preceding description is more than justified, and, given your recent statements I think that the time for polite tolerance has passed.)
But just to spit into the wind one more time -
Sex with those unwilling or unable to give consent is wrong because in engaging in this conduct you are willfully using another in ways that one would never willingly accept for oneself. (Look up Kant's categorical imperative.) Children and animals have no ability to consent. Even children who believe they are consenting, do not have the moral and intellectual capacity to provide true consent. Society has generally decided that the age in which a person has that capacity is somewhere in the late teens. Human history and experience has shown that children who are forced or coerced into engaging in sexual relationships with adults are harmed by the encounter, often deeply. None of these concerns are present in adult, consensual, same-sex intimate relationships.
Further, in regard to sexual relationships with animals, there are further moral concerns and practical health risks. We have always intuitively mistrusted persons who would engage in sexual conduct with animals. Modern psychotherapy has shown that this moral intuition was correct and that such conduct is indicative of maladaptive personalities and other unhealthy, anti-social, and harmful behaviors. Psychotherapy used to describe homosexual conduct as maladaptive as well, but this flowed from religious-based objections and tautological thinking - homosexuality was defined a priori as "bad" so homosexual conduct and those who engaged in it must be "bad." These deductions have not stood against actual examination and observance and so the psychological consensus on homosexuality shifted to acknowledge that it was not harmful or "deviant" conduct.
Lastly, in regard to practical objections to sex with animals, there are very real and potentially severe health risks involved with such conduct. Social and personal sanction against such conduct is more than justified.
Note that if you are going to take the above and try and make a health risk argument against homosexual conduct, you will have to have some argument for why the risks of conduct that occurs within both heterosexual and homosexual intimate relationships is somehow dangerous in one context while not being dangerous in another. (Since, as Kinsey so clearly showed us, all conduct that exists in homosexual relationships has direct and relational analogues in heterosexual relationships.) In other words, any health argument you might make against homosexual conduct would apply equally to heterosexual conduct.
So there you go, a reasoned, evidence-based argument for why your analogy is both false on the facts and specious in implication. I don't know why I bother, however, because I'm sure you will come back with some raving retort that mischaracterizes what I have said, misconstrues the argument entirely, or in some other novel way appears to attack my post without in actuality engaging with its substance.
I have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt up to this point. I now see I was wrong to do so. Unless I am given reason to change my mind, I will no longer be engaging you in these forums. I would encourage all of my fellow scientific thinkers to consider doing the same as giving considered attention to your posts provides them with a credibility to which they are decidedly undeserving. |
First let me say, that there is no particular disagreement with your post (except with perhaps the implication of my limited reasoning ability – but that aside) your points are understandable
Spitting in the wind is OK, as long as you turn your head first.
There are a few points I would like to address:
“Society has generally decided that the age in which a person has that capacity is somewhere in the late teens.” I agree with this in principle. The problem for me comes in the definition of society. I fully agree that this is how it happens – however when reviewing this in a philosophical context, one must define who and what society is – or run the risk of a continuum of arguments which you and others find frustrating, illogical or even absurd. For example; if society is contained as being defined within ones own sect – then marriage to girls who have reached sexual maturity seems “natural”. Certainly in line with the animal kingdoms “natural” order on reproduction. If society is defined as containing members outside of the sect, then how can those outside (homosexuals) refuse to accept the sects argument that it is natural/normal for young girls/women to be bound into marriage upon their sexual maturity? After all, the sect claims homosexuality is un-natural, not normal, and immoral, yet the homosexual society says – look at the animal world and see the evidence of homosexual behavior in animals. Then the sect claims that in the animal world, animals are bred upon sexual maturity, therefore not only is there evidence of it being natural/normal, it was designed by God to be so. Therefore, for me, the argument used by the homosexual society that homosexuality in man is natural/normal based on our animal cousins, if true – then homosexuals must accept the return argument regarding their sect contemporaries. Or if they reject it, then they cannot claim it for themselves – for to do so is unfair and shows guilt of the very bias that they are accusing the sect members of. I know that you understand my point.
The animal argument (beastiality) was an intentional insert to make the point of the absurdity of the original claim by homosexuals that because homosexual behavior is observable in the animal society, then by direct lineage, it is acceptable behavior in man. No. It might be acceptable behavior in man, but not because animals are observed behaving in that manner. Otherwise, you cannot deny the argument put forth by those who practice beastiality that their behavior also is observed in the animal world – and when scalvert posts that man = animal, then it really makes it difficult to deny their claim. Or at least in my opinion hypocritical. It would be better (imo) for homosexuals to not make any reference to an inherited trait via evolution, and simply argue that their sexual preferences are simply their preference, just like some like/prefer one thing whiles others prefer something else. Then we avoid this absurd argument altogether.
Part of the problem I see, is that those posting supporting homosexual partnerships, post from a humanistic standpoint – meaning that they emphasize the “relationship” aspects. The commitment. The love. The behind closed doors – mind your own business aspects. Yet when challenged as their action being immoral or outside the normal behavior of society, then they want to claim some natural lineage proving their lifestyle is directly linked to our ancestry in animals – therefore normal/natural/and good. My posts on homosexuality are specifically narrowed to the sex act itself, devoid of the human aspects of their relationship. The reason for this separation is that human relationships and human sexual activity are not necessarily both required for either to ocurr. They may both be present, or they may be present independently and separately. Certainly you would agree that persons can engage in simply sexual gratification and they can have relationships (meaningful relationships/loving relationships/committed relationships) without sex. Thus if we are going to use as our base premise that observed animal behavior is the root of accepting sexual actions between two humans of the same gender, then we must also extend that to include other animal sexual behaviors which include sex with animals and sex upon sexual maturity. To deny this truth, is to deny that there is any relationship between human sexual activity and animals – which I personally agree with – but is counter to the homosexual’s core argument.
Thus, my position of human sexuality is pretty liberal. I really really don’t care who or what you do it with. I really don’t care if you want to put peanut butter or honey on parts of your body and have your dog or cat lick it off. What you do in your house is your business. If you like guys or girls or both – that is fine by me. Just don’t claim that your behavior is normal/natural based upon some observable action in the animal world and not give that same defense to someone else.
From the perspective of religious morality, many behaviors can be deemed offensive, un-natural, immoral, within any given society. But that is a different argument – separate from whether I personally care what members of one group do behind closed doors. In my opinion, homosexuality is just like any other relationship between humans. Some folks just like each other. Just don’t claim justification for it because animals do it too. That to me – is absurd.
Hopefully that has clarified some of my points.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2008 05:47:38 PM · #684 |
Originally posted by Flash:
From the perspective of religious morality, many behaviors can be deemed offensive, un-natural, immoral, within any given society. But that is a different argument – separate from whether I personally care what members of one group do behind closed doors. In my opinion, homosexuality is just like any other relationship between humans. Some folks just like each other. Just don’t claim justification for it because animals do it too. That to me – is absurd.
Hopefully that has clarified some of my points. |
Flash - you repeated the very point that gave rise to this discussion.
In case you have forgotten, you have argued that
(1) homosexuality is unnatural; and
(2) the existence of homosexuality is evidence against evolution.
You then started a "sky is falling" argument with the false argument that if homosexuality becomes socially acceptable, then "what next"? People having sex with animals in the streets?
The fact that it exists in nature is a perfectly acceptable rebuttal of both your arguments: (1) we see homosexuality occurring naturally, and (2) we see its presence in successful animal populations, which indicates that it does not promote evolutionary failure. The justifications were not trying to defend homosexuality, but point out the absurdity of your arguments.
Your "sky is falling" argument is typical illogical homophobic nonsense that is palpably untrue in more tolerant societies than the one that you inhabit and encourage.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2008 08:28:06 PM · #685 |
God will sort all this out.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2008 11:01:35 PM · #686 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
God will sort all this out. |
Which one? There are so many. For your sake I hope you picked the right one.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/23/2008 07:07:34 AM · #687 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by David Ey:
God will sort all this out. |
Which one? There are so many. For your sake I hope you picked the right one.
Ray |
There are 3 major religions that all subscribe to a monotheistic God and all use the same core books for their basic history. I will be betting on those. |
|
|
|
04/23/2008 07:15:21 AM · #688 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by David Ey:
God will sort all this out. |
Which one? There are so many. For your sake I hope you picked the right one.
Ray |
There are 3 major religions that all subscribe to a monotheistic God and all use the same core books for their basic history. I will be betting on those. |
Shall I assume that you are a believer in all three of these... and will your Christian God forgive you for even considering some other Deity... isn't that something you should worry about.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/23/2008 09:36:11 AM · #689 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by David Ey:
God will sort all this out. |
Which one? There are so many. For your sake I hope you picked the right one.
Ray |
There are 3 major religions that all subscribe to a monotheistic God and all use the same core books for their basic history. I will be betting on those. |
Shall I assume that you are a believer in all three of these... and will your Christian God forgive you for even considering some other Deity... isn't that something you should worry about.
Ray |
They are the same deity. The same monotheistic God head. The same core books. One is awaiting the first coming of the messiah, the second is awaiting the secong coming and the third is awaiting the messiah as well. I have chosen to embrace the Christian account, however I do not claim that Jews or Muslims will be excluded from God's pressence - after death. I have enough to do just trying to keep my own nose clean. |
|
|
|
04/23/2008 10:53:26 AM · #690 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
In case you have forgotten, you have argued that
(1) homosexuality is unnatural; and
(2) the existence of homosexuality is evidence against evolution. |
Matthew - Many pages ago or perhaps even in another thread I originally presented an argument(s) that homosexuality was sinful. I do recall supporting or arguing that homosexuality was unnatural. Much discussion insued whereby many posters defended homosexuality as natural/normal and provided evidence from the animal world to support their position (namely but not exclusively a species of monkey and bees). They separately argued in this thread that evolution is factual (supported by fossil proof) and man is directly linked to animals in evolution.
I have in these recent postings drawn the 2 together. In other words, if homosexuality is normal/natural and the reason it is normal/natural is because it is observable in animals, then other sexual activities observable in both animals and man may also be linked via evolution. At the very least, those claiming justification for homosexual actions (sex between members of the same gender) must be prepared for claims/justifications of others that can trace their behavior to animals as well.
I don’t think I ever argued that homosexuality is against evolution (however I may have) – rather that if those supporting homosexuality and its practice of sex between same gender persons is based on justifying it due to this act being observed in animals (thus based on evolution and normal/natural), then they can’t deny someone else that engages in other animal sexual behaviors (either sex with animals or sex upon maturity) the same lineage.
What I think is the “rub” is the subject matter and the crudeness of the arguments. I have not placed a correlation between homosexuality, beastiality, and pedophilia as each being representative of the other – only that each can use the same argument of defense for its justification. Therefore, either all are true or none are. If the homosexual supporter denies the (animal link) argument to those that claim justification for sex with sexually mature girls or with animals, then they cannot use that argument for their own justification. That is my only point and I do not understand why it is so difficult for you or others to admit my point. It is nearly a self-evident truth (as in all red things are red).
Regarding my “homophobiaӉ€Â¦I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder. I can distinguish between an argument for or against”x”, without holding that position as a personal view – just like my examples to you previously about advocating a position in the courtroom or boardroom without it being a core belief of the advocates. I see no problem with holding simultaneous views that homosexuality is both sinful and a matter I don’t care if you engage in or not. Just like I don’t care if you behave in any number of “sin” actions, like using the Lord’s name in vain, failing to keep holy the Sabath, lusting after your neighbor, etc etc etc. I don’t care if you like boys, girls, both, or none of the above. Its relevance to a sinful act is completely separate - just like your guilt or innocence in reality is separate from my advocacy of your position in the courtroom. Completely separate items. One is a belief the other is a position of argument. They can be the same, but they do not have to be. Therefore I do not consider myself homophobic in the least, likely more accepting in real life than you will ever know – that does not in any way change my view on the sexual act itself as being against God’s intention. That is solely a matter between you and God, not me and you. You’re comfortable with your decision – so am I. Live however you want. Sleep with whomever you want. I really really don’t care. Just don’t justify that decision as being proven in nature without the same consideration being afforded to others that may do what you consider to be “sinful” acts or immoral acts, when they can use the same claim as it being found in nature thus natural/normal.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2008 01:53:47 PM · #691 |
|
|
|
04/24/2008 02:04:48 PM · #692 |
I'm always surprised when I'm reminded how young the species is. If extra-African migration began only 60,000 years ago, and this event is only 70,000 years old, how old's the species? Something like 135,000 years?
Edit: About 150,000 years.
Message edited by author 2008-04-24 14:07:19. |
|
|
|
04/24/2008 07:15:07 PM · #693 |
|
|
|
04/24/2008 08:04:22 PM · #694 |
|
|
|
04/25/2008 04:57:48 PM · #695 |
|
|
|
04/25/2008 05:04:31 PM · #696 |
*sigh* I read that story in the paper verison of the NYT today while eating lunch. Then I go and read the online version at another newspaper, and rediscover the reason why opening up newspaper articles to commentary from the unwashed masses should be outlawed. What a grievously sad collection of ignorance. Truly, truly sad. |
|
|
|
04/25/2008 05:09:18 PM · #697 |
I'mma have some T-Rex McNuggets for dinner.
MMMMMMMMMM
|
|
|
|
04/25/2008 05:37:51 PM · #698 |
| Guess I'm lucky when it's only a pigion crapping on my newly washed car;) |
|
|
|
04/25/2008 05:42:41 PM · #699 |
Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds,
-or- Why Did the T-Rex Cross the Road?
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 01:36:19 PM · #700 |
An interesting take down from an unexpected source of the new "documentary" anti-evolution/pro-creationist movie "Expelled."
Originally posted by John Derbyshire:
When talking about the creationists to people who don’t follow these controversies closely, I have found that the hardest thing to get across is the shifty, low-cunning aspect of the whole modern creationist enterprise. Individual creationists can be very nice people, though they get nicer the further away they are from the full-time core enterprise of modern creationism at the Discovery Institute. The enterprise as a whole, however, really doesn’t smell good. You notice this when you’re around it a lot. I shall give some more examples in a minute; but what accounts for all this dishonesty and misrepresentation?
My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools.
Now, there is nothing wrong with that. We are a nation of pressure groups, and one more would hardly notice. However, since parents who want their kids religiously educated already have plenty of private and parochial schools to choose from (half the kids on my street have attended parochial school), as well as the option of home schooling, now very well organized and supported (and heartily approved of by me: I just wish I knew how they find the time); and since current jurisprudence, how correctly I am not competent to say, regards tax-funded religious instruction as unconstitutional; creationists are a pressure group without hope, if they campaign openly for the thing they want.
Understanding this, the creationists took the morally fatal decision to campaign clandestinely. They overhauled creationism as “intelligent design,” roped in a handful of eccentric non-Christian cranks keen for a well-funded vehicle to help them push their own flat-earth theories, and set about presenting themselves to the public as “alternative science" engaged in a “controversy” with a closed-minded, reactionary “science establishment” fearful of new ideas. (Ignoring the fact that without a constant supply of new ideas, there would be nothing for scientists to do.) Nothing to do with religion at all!
I think this willful act of deception has corrupted creationism irredeemably. The old Biblical creationists were, in my opinion, wrong-headed, but they were mostly honest people. The “intelligent design” crowd lean more in the other direction. Hence the dishonesty and sheer nastiness, even down to plain bad manners, that you keep encountering in ID circles. It’s by no means all of them, but it’s enough to corrupt and poison the creationist enterprise, which might otherwise have added something worthwhile to our national life, if only by way of entertainment value. |
Lots more good stuff here: Expelled Exposed
Message edited by author 2008-04-28 13:37:38. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 11:07:28 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 11:07:28 AM EDT.
|
