Why specify Western? Are you prejudiced against scientists in the Orient?Blackwood wrote: i venture to guess that this study is based on US scientists? It doesn't say, but no Western country has such a high % of religious believers as the US...
Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught
It's not a good point, in fact it's not a point at all.Walden wrote:
Blackwood wrote:
i venture to guess that this study is based on US scientists? It doesn't say, but no Western country has such a high % of religious believers as the US...
Why specify Western? Are you prejudiced against scientists in the Orient?
That's a good point.
I don't know how much you know about statistical sampling techniques, but if you must know, the logic is one of segmentation. The study was compiled by US institutions, they did not specify other countries so a reasonable assertion can be made that it is based on US residing scientists.
Since the US is predominantly a Christian nation in a 1st world economic/scientific setting any comparable study would imply other Western nations.
If I compare scientists in a predominantly Muslim country (which by definition in today's world is not a 1st world economy -see UN definitions) I'm comparing apples to oranges.
So there was no point in that comment at all other than to try a cheap shot against me snealiky trying to imply i'm supposedly racist, intolerant or prejudiced and I resent that greatly.
If i'm mistaken enlighten me.
-
Walden
- Chiffmaster General
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
- Contact:
What does economics have to do with the matter? I've lived in the Third World and I've lived in the USA. There are scientists in both places. Your response here seems to indicate that you are specifically trying to rule out Islamic nations. What about 1st World economies in the East, such as Japan? It was no cheap shot at all.Blackwood wrote:It's not a good point, in fact it's not a point at all.
I don't know how much you know about statistical sampling techniques, but if you must know, the logic is one of segmentation. The study was compiled by US institutions, they did not specify other countries so a reasonable assertion can be made that it is based on US residing scientists.
Since the US is predominantly a Christian nation in a 1st world economic/scientific setting any comparable study would imply other Western nations.
If I compare scientists in a predominantly Muslim country (which by definition in today's world is not a 1st world economy -see UN definitions) I'm comparing apples to oranges.
So there was no point in that comment at all other than to try a cheap shot against me snealiky trying to imply i'm supposedly racist, intolerant or prejudiced and I resent that greatly.
If i'm mistaken enlighten me.
Reasonable person
Walden
Walden
It was a cheap shot! You questioned my motivation and intended to convey i was prejudiced by implication. You did not factually disprove the statement I made which is a correct statement. I was making a statement in reference to the US in comparison to other comparable countries (which are by definition Western and 1st world economies ). Instead you chose to ignore the factual correctness of the statement and twist it in a direction that had nothing to do with the point, but intended to inflame by your subsequent statement.
I take your motivation not to be sincere but rather malicious.
I think you should apologize.
I take your motivation not to be sincere but rather malicious.
I think you should apologize.
-
rh
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:14 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: SoFla
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot ... =960467597Cranberry wrote:It doesn't say where the scientists come from.Blackwood wrote:i venture to guess that this study is based on US scientists? It doesn't say, but no Western country has such a high % of religious believers as the US..."Scientists' belief in God varies by discipline"
this is not to say that it was only US-born scientists who were surveyed, however; just that they were scientists on the faculty of US universities.With a $283,000 grant from the Templeton Foundation, Ecklund mailed $15 and a request to participate in a 10-minute on-line survey to 2,148 faculty at 21 of the top U.S. research universities. She phoned those who did not take the survey to give them a chance to answer questions by phone. After seven weeks, more than 1,600 had completed the survey either on-line or by phone. The final response rate of 75 percent was "quite high" for social science research, Ecklund said.
Last edited by rh on Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
there is no end to the walking
-
Jack
- Posts: 15580
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: somewhere, over the rainbow, and Ergoville, USA
I am not the nanny (it doesn't pay enough), but Walden is my friend and this is not the first time that he has been treated like this for holding a relatively conservative Christian point of view, mind you. It gets tiring to witness after a while.jGilder wrote:What are you Cranberry, the C&F nanny? Sven has every right to take issue with anyone he wants. It's up to the moderators to determine if he's out of line... not you.Cranberry wrote:Blackwood, hush. Don't call Walden malicious and don't accuse him unjustly.
Thanks and have a nice day.
-
jGilder
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:25 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Having a "conservative Christian point of view" doesn't mean that he's immune from accountability if someone feels personally offended by his remarks.Cranberry wrote:I am not the nanny (it doesn't pay enough), but Walden is my friend and this is not the first time that he has been treated like this for holding a relatively conservative Christian point of view, mind you. It gets tiring to witness after a while.jGilder wrote:What are you Cranberry, the C&F nanny? Sven has every right to take issue with anyone he wants. It's up to the moderators to determine if he's out of line... not you.Cranberry wrote:Blackwood, hush. Don't call Walden malicious and don't accuse him unjustly.
Thanks and have a nice day.
-
Jack
- Posts: 15580
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: somewhere, over the rainbow, and Ergoville, USA
Well of course not.jGilder wrote:Having a "conservative Christian point of view" doesn't mean that he's immune from accountability if someone feels personally offended by his remarks.Cranberry wrote:I am not the nanny (it doesn't pay enough), but Walden is my friend and this is not the first time that he has been treated like this for holding a relatively conservative Christian point of view, mind you. It gets tiring to witness after a while.jGilder wrote: What are you Cranberry, the C&F nanny? Sven has every right to take issue with anyone he wants. It's up to the moderators to determine if he's out of line... not you.
Re: Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught
Speaking as one who believes that a higher power is responsible for creation, I would like to say that not all of us believe that Intelligent design should be taught in schools. For myself, Bloomfield has pretty well covered my views on the subject.Bloomfield wrote:I hesitated to post the bit about "silly" because I know there are people who believe in creation. And there are some serious issues with evolutionary theories that can easily lead you to conclude that evolution cannot satisfactorily explain the world. I would hate to disparage anyone's views. But I still think schools should stick to science in science class (and point out the limitations of science.)jsluder wrote:There are, apparently, a lot of silly people...Bloomfield wrote:But pretending that creationism or intelligent design amount to anything even resembling a theory is a bit silly, I think.
Susan
HeySue!
_________
Don't Panic!
_________
Don't Panic!
Harvard to Investigate Origins of Life 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Harvard University is joining the long-running debate over the theory of evolution by launching a research project to study how life began.
ADVERTISEMENT
The team of researchers will receive $1 million in funding annually from Harvard over the next few years. The project begins with an admission that some mysteries about life's origins cannot be explained.
"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard.
The "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative" is still in its early stages, scientists told the Boston Sunday Globe. Harvard has told the research team to make plans for adding faculty members and a collection of multimillion-dollar facilities.
Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory that species evolved over millions of years. It has been standard in most public school science texts for decades but recently re-emerged in the spotlight as communities and some states debated whether school children should also be taught about creationism or intelligent design.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
Harvard has not been seen as a leader in origins of life research, but the university's vast resources could change that perception.
"It is quite gratifying to see Harvard is going for a solution to a problem that will be remembered 100 years from now," said Steven Benner, a University of Florida scientist who is one of the world's top chemists in origins-of-life research.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Harvard University is joining the long-running debate over the theory of evolution by launching a research project to study how life began.
ADVERTISEMENT
The team of researchers will receive $1 million in funding annually from Harvard over the next few years. The project begins with an admission that some mysteries about life's origins cannot be explained.
"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard.
The "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative" is still in its early stages, scientists told the Boston Sunday Globe. Harvard has told the research team to make plans for adding faculty members and a collection of multimillion-dollar facilities.
Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory that species evolved over millions of years. It has been standard in most public school science texts for decades but recently re-emerged in the spotlight as communities and some states debated whether school children should also be taught about creationism or intelligent design.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
Harvard has not been seen as a leader in origins of life research, but the university's vast resources could change that perception.
"It is quite gratifying to see Harvard is going for a solution to a problem that will be remembered 100 years from now," said Steven Benner, a University of Florida scientist who is one of the world's top chemists in origins-of-life research.
good one:
Kimberly Brooks
Penguins Kill Intelligent Design Theory
I took my kids to see March of the Penguins the other night. In between the Red Vines and the popcorn, all I could think was: "this is the most poorly designed animal I had ever seen." A more apt title is The Plight of the Penguin. Intelligent Designer? Give me a break.
(Caution: Spoiler ahead:)
After selecting a male mate, females lay a single large egg on the top of their feet after a long wait. When the father returns, both attempt to roll the single egg, in the freezing artic, from the top of the mother’s feet to the top of the father’s feet. Cold weather has let evolve a large belly flap to protect it from freezing. Then the fathers dutifully huddle together on an inland bed of ice for four months during unimaginable storms without food to guard their eggs, while the mother marches hundreds of miles to the sea to gorge herself so she can come back months later. When she returns to find her male mate who now has lost half his body weight, she regurgitates the food she’s eaten to her hatchling, and the male then repeats her journey to the sea to get some food, and start all over again. Eggs roll off the feet and crack open all the time. Hatchlings come early and starve. It’s an awesome, gruesome, stupefying tale and the ultimate story of survival, adaptation and evolution.
So why on EARTH is The Kansas Board of Education entertaining “new standards for science education”, implicating evolution as merely a controversial unresolved option? The real mystery isn’t between Darwinian evolution and some deity. The real mystery is why the cover of Time Magazine shows Michelangelo’s God-touches-man with the ape again? Who is exhuming this buried 19th century argument? I thought the Supreme Court decision in 1987 to separate church and state in the classroom settled all this.
It turns out that one of the Intelligent Designers showed up on Nightline the other night. He is named Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute and he has suspicious rows of dyed black hair and a moustache. Now, I have no issue with his vanity, (a core tenet of our survival of the fittest behavior), but he had the nerve to accuse the educational system of “secularist fundamentalism”, as dangerous as any religious fundamentalism; i.e.: Islamic fundamentalism. (Remember, “If Yer not For Us, Yer Against Us!”) And even though ten out of the ten biology departments across the country in the Nightline survey reaffirmed that THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY, Mr. Meyer concludes that the only argument is assessing who the intelligent designer is. (George Will, also on the show, gently noted that the only proof of “Intelligent Design” is the Bible”.) It’s THE NEW MARKETING campaign, folks! They are the producers and promoters of this great marketing scheme called ‘Intelligent Design’. Kudos to them for the GREAT BRAND NAME. It’s right up there with The Clean Air Act. New Pepsi--watch out!
In Richard Dawkins book The Selfish Gene, he maintains that ideas, like genes, also mutate and evolve for survival. We are witnessing the adaptation of the idea of creationism. This is nothing new. The Church is actually a fantastic study in evolution. For example, the church figured out that men of cloth had to be celibate to ensure that no heirs could take away its wealth. Too bad that adaptation caused an outbreak of pedophilia, child molestations and massive cover-ups only recently brought to light but no doubt going on for hundreds of years if not longer.
Intelligent Design is just creationism in new clothes. The genius this time is that they’re pitching it as if believing in evolution and god is mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, they’ve unleashed the shiny PR campaign on woefully unequipped school boards across the country and the leader of the free world’s brain. Beam me up, Galileo! If there is an Intelligent Designer, I know of some pretty mad penguins who’d like to talk with her.
Kimberly Brooks
Penguins Kill Intelligent Design Theory
I took my kids to see March of the Penguins the other night. In between the Red Vines and the popcorn, all I could think was: "this is the most poorly designed animal I had ever seen." A more apt title is The Plight of the Penguin. Intelligent Designer? Give me a break.
(Caution: Spoiler ahead:)
After selecting a male mate, females lay a single large egg on the top of their feet after a long wait. When the father returns, both attempt to roll the single egg, in the freezing artic, from the top of the mother’s feet to the top of the father’s feet. Cold weather has let evolve a large belly flap to protect it from freezing. Then the fathers dutifully huddle together on an inland bed of ice for four months during unimaginable storms without food to guard their eggs, while the mother marches hundreds of miles to the sea to gorge herself so she can come back months later. When she returns to find her male mate who now has lost half his body weight, she regurgitates the food she’s eaten to her hatchling, and the male then repeats her journey to the sea to get some food, and start all over again. Eggs roll off the feet and crack open all the time. Hatchlings come early and starve. It’s an awesome, gruesome, stupefying tale and the ultimate story of survival, adaptation and evolution.
So why on EARTH is The Kansas Board of Education entertaining “new standards for science education”, implicating evolution as merely a controversial unresolved option? The real mystery isn’t between Darwinian evolution and some deity. The real mystery is why the cover of Time Magazine shows Michelangelo’s God-touches-man with the ape again? Who is exhuming this buried 19th century argument? I thought the Supreme Court decision in 1987 to separate church and state in the classroom settled all this.
It turns out that one of the Intelligent Designers showed up on Nightline the other night. He is named Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute and he has suspicious rows of dyed black hair and a moustache. Now, I have no issue with his vanity, (a core tenet of our survival of the fittest behavior), but he had the nerve to accuse the educational system of “secularist fundamentalism”, as dangerous as any religious fundamentalism; i.e.: Islamic fundamentalism. (Remember, “If Yer not For Us, Yer Against Us!”) And even though ten out of the ten biology departments across the country in the Nightline survey reaffirmed that THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY, Mr. Meyer concludes that the only argument is assessing who the intelligent designer is. (George Will, also on the show, gently noted that the only proof of “Intelligent Design” is the Bible”.) It’s THE NEW MARKETING campaign, folks! They are the producers and promoters of this great marketing scheme called ‘Intelligent Design’. Kudos to them for the GREAT BRAND NAME. It’s right up there with The Clean Air Act. New Pepsi--watch out!
In Richard Dawkins book The Selfish Gene, he maintains that ideas, like genes, also mutate and evolve for survival. We are witnessing the adaptation of the idea of creationism. This is nothing new. The Church is actually a fantastic study in evolution. For example, the church figured out that men of cloth had to be celibate to ensure that no heirs could take away its wealth. Too bad that adaptation caused an outbreak of pedophilia, child molestations and massive cover-ups only recently brought to light but no doubt going on for hundreds of years if not longer.
Intelligent Design is just creationism in new clothes. The genius this time is that they’re pitching it as if believing in evolution and god is mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, they’ve unleashed the shiny PR campaign on woefully unequipped school boards across the country and the leader of the free world’s brain. Beam me up, Galileo! If there is an Intelligent Designer, I know of some pretty mad penguins who’d like to talk with her.