Survey: More Americans Adopting Pro-Life Perspective

C.P. Steinmetz »

Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

This is a very nice example of spin and what surveyors call "Garbage In - Gospel Out". Two examples:

1. "found that 86 percent of those surveyed said they would significantly restrict abortion," This is pure spin. Rather, they should report that only 12% support the pro-life and Catholic position of 'abortion should never be permitted under any circumstance.' So much for being "pro-life".

2. "79 percent support conscience exemptions on abortion for health care workers," The question asked was: "Do you think health care workers such as doctors and nurses who believe abortion is wrong should be required to perform them, or not?" This is GIGO. Rather, to be relevant to the actual issues, the questions that should have been asked are:
1. Do you think your doctor or nurse has the right to refuse to prescribe, or refer you to someone who will, birth control pills, because they believe birth control pills constitute an abortion?
2. Do you think you pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill your legal prescription for birth control pills or to dispense emergency birth control - like Plan B - because they believe birth control pills constitute an abortion?
3. Do you think your doctor or nurse, because of their religious beliefs, has the right to refuse to refer you to a physician or service that provides abortion?

If these questions had been asked, this issue would, I strongly suspect, be seen in a much different light.

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

C.P. Steinmetz »

Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

More. "In regard to your comment about TrueOrigin, you've taken it out of context." This may be, but ...
"Have you looked over the majority of TrueOrigin?" Perhaps more than you have looked at TalkOrigin. I have never been impressed.

"After reading many articles on TrueOrigin, yes, I consider them a good (not perfect) science source. Certainly better than most evo sources that I've seen." Have you spent much time in TalkOrigin? A much more credible source, in my biased opinion.

TrueOrigins & Discovery.org bring up many great inconsistencies about Darwinian evolution. Instead of answering these inconsistencies, most evo's rant & bully the questioner. Again, not very scientific." And, without doubt Discovery Institute deserves everything negative I can bring. For, while masking as a scientific organization, it subscribes to the goals of:
"* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

"1)You hit the nail on the head with your committment to what is called the philosophical materialism system (which I will light-hearted refer to as PMS-pun intended)". The females of the world will get you for this.

Either I wrote it wrong, or you read wrong, as I said it *started*, not triumphed, in 1785.

"Even J.Robert Oppenheimer (civilian head of the Manhatten project and an agnostic) said that modern science couldn't have been birthed in any other system, except Christianity." That is a possibility, perhaps disputable in Muslim countries historically.

"Until the 20th century, almost every major scientist revealed his discoveries in religious terms. Isaac Newton (who wrote more on theology than science/math) said that because Christianity posits a rational God, then we scientists only have to think His thoughts after Him to discover these laws." As noted above, Newton was a man of his times, and nuts about certain religious items.

"In 1997, Richard Lewontin said about his & Carl Sagan's defense of evolution, "We take the side of science IN SPITE of the patent absurdities of some of its constructs....because we have a prior commitment to materialism...that materialism is absolute, for we CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR". A good scientific statement. Many things we now accept as true are absurd - quantum entanglement, for one. Nonetheless, it tests out as true.

"So evolution is believed not so much on its own proofs, but because of a prior commitment to PMS." In the special case you cite, but you have no foundation to generalize to all scientists or people in general.

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

C.P. Steinmetz »

Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:38 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Continued. "As to your point about teaching other religions in Christian churches. This is a non-sequitar (spelling again?). Church is voluntary, public schools are not." May be a stretch, but too often in this country, religion in public school is not voluntary. So I thought the comparison was valid.

"Science is also supposed to teach where the facts go, not a presuppositional,narrow view of a subject." And that is what science classes do. It is the ID folk who want to wander from the facts to religious view.

"Again I say, whatever happened to unity in diversity. There's no diversity when one side completely shuts out the other sides and not by the power of their argument but by bullying & threats of losing jobs." If an English teacher were to continue to try to teach off subject, firing would be appropriate. As I and others see teaching religious views (Creationism and ID) in science classes as abhorrent, bullying and firing seem very appropriate.

"Its this intelligent design argument that converted Dr. Anthony Flew from atheism to theism (n ote that I didn't say Christianity). At 85 years old, Dr. Gary Habermas (thru many & long correspondences)convinced a life long & very ardent atheist to become a theist." No different from non-scientists, old scientists often tend to become loony. Flew was 90 years old when he converted. Who would give credence to such a conversion. More importantly, the views of one or several scientists are meaningless, as science isn't based upon an appeal to authority. Rather, the body of scientific understanding is controlling.

"2)So you reject anything that goes against PMS even if it is where the facts are leading. Doesn't sound very scientific to me. What if the facts are leading to belief in a Designer?"
Of course, it is the interpretation of "facts" that is the issue. And, the "facts that lead to a designer" must be stated in such a fashion that they can be falsified, which they are not.

If you read about the lives of the 16-19th century scientists,... Are you willing to look back on all of these scientists and pronounce them as pseudo-scientists? Men like Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk-Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Gregor Mendel. Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Georg Ohm, Andre Ampere, Robert Boyle, Antoine Lavoisier, John Dalton, etc." They were all products of their time, and I would judge them on their works, not their personal religious beliefs. Newton, for example, was probably certifiably nuts on certain religious issues. ["Nuts" is surely a close approximation of the professional term for his condition.] As you know, Pascal was in and out of religious conversion, and wrote extremely valuable material when not religious, and dreck like Pascal's Wager, when he was.

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

C.P. Steinmetz »

Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:37 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

And now to scientist3. I enjoy these discussions too much - life is supposed to be more than this, I think. And thank you for noting the civility and being civil yourself. As one with a scientific bent, I must remain civil, as the possibility always exists that I could be wrong. I will try to answer some of your issues, but not all - life is too short.

And here the rubber hits the road. "In regard to your point to believer about not discussing C-ID in a science class....why not, its science!" We must obviously always disagree on this - and question the other's mental state. As I, and virtually all 'scientists' define "science", I allow no supernatural forces or explanation - as long as they cannot be falsified. "God did it" is not an explanation, but a cop out. Where are the real testable and falsifiable predictions from ID. I have read what they claim are such, but to me they are as convincing as saying "lots of people will die in China this year." They need to put forward a test that - if failed - will affirm there is not 'designer'. You are apparently willing to include supernatural forces/causes and call it science. Ah well.

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

C.P. Steinmetz »

Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

believer, I obviously did not write as clearly as I thought I did. Yes, "the infamous Piltdown Hoax was based on the fact that the evidence was a combined human skull and an oragutan skull which apparently were doctored to make it look like an ancient fossil." My point was that the relevant scientists were never comfortable with it because it did not fit the accepted evolutionary view. As such, the whole affair is a testament to the correctness of evolutionary theory, and the scientific method.

"And let's not forget Nebraska man ..." This affair is not terribly embarrassing. Scientists are also humans who crave the glory of finding something new - and going off half cocked. Even respected religious leaders do stupid things.

"Plus, you say creationism is not scientific and yet those in the field of creationism hold the same credentials/degrees and attended some of the same schools as those in the evolution camp and approach their research using some of the same methods and processes as those in the evolution camp." Interesting, but not sufficient. The reason I rightly claim Creationism is not science is that to be a science requires that hypotheses be testable, and more importantly, falsifiable. If Creationism is actually a science, you could provide me with a test that, if failed, would make you or others who believe in Creationism say that "God" didn't create everything. Is there such a test? If no evidence could convince someone that their view of creation was wrong, then that person is not being scientific (and not a scientist, at least on that issue).

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

C.P. Steinmetz »

Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

mathetes - very perceptive. However, I am not an EE, just have had a bad case of hero worship since I was a child riding my dinosaur to school.

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

C.P. Steinmetz »

Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

scientist3, Here is the rest of the post that was left off because I copied a quote with a forbidden character in it.
Additionally, I have always been amused at 'TrueOrigins', a supposed 'science' site that has this: "Genesis Questioned (Jonathan Sarfati) - reviews Hugh Ross's latest published effort at placing erroneous "science" above infallible Scripture."

Do you still maintain that this is a credible science source?

About me. My background in science is irrelevant, as I don't have "scientist" in my handle, and I don't support putting religion in science. However, in my dabbling, I have had several of my works published by AAAS.

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

C.P. Steinmetz »

Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer, you have committed several interesting errors.
1. "... once again if they're so wrong in their view then why not bring them into the classroom and show them and their theories for the fakes and frauds they really are?" As you think this is a good tactic, do you (or your church) invite other religions in to your services, maybe like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Hari Krishna, Hindu, etc,?
Along the same vein, would you expect science classes to invite in 'flat earthers', those who support the 'bad air' theory of illness, etc.?

In short, why should science classes teach things that are demonstrably not science, or have been refuted (like creationists arguments)?

2. "... but at the same time in the past scientific data such as the piltdown man used to support evolution has been shown to not be valid." I guess you are unaware that the reasons Piltdown man was suspect was because it didn't fit the theories of the development of man. In short, it is a poster child for evolution, not the opposite.

3. "Plus, much of the data to support evolution as well as the data to support creationism is based on the interpretation of the evidence which in many cases can be interpreted to support either view." Just totally wrong. You should look at real science sources, not lying creationists.

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

C.P. Steinmetz »

Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

scientist3, thank you for the response. The reason I asked for your science background is that I find it very strange that with a science background, you support supernatural explanations in science. In fact, TrueOrigins - that you pointed me to - starts with a statement allowing/requiring supernatural explanations: "The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to ... the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins)."

In fact, since since James Hutton in a 1785 paper noted that: "No powers are to be employed [for explanation] that are not natural to the globe ...", it has been a sine qua non of science that only natural forces are used, as supernatural forces cannot be falsified.
Additionally, I have always been amused at 'TrueOrigins', a supposed 'science' site that has this: "Genesis Questioned (Jonathan Sarfati)â

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

C.P. Steinmetz »

Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

scientist3, quite revealing.

"1) Wrong! Scientific progress grows by data, theorizing & debating the strengths & weaknesses of that theory. Always has, always will." This is true only by defining "debating" in a special way - certainly not the way Walt Brown wants - public debate.

"2) Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. ... While many things are accurate about it, many things are not." Having checked Brown's website, I found nothing to show Wikipedia was incorrect.

"3) Relating to his debate offer, if you had gone to his website ..." I spent considerable time reading his website. "When considering a difference of opinion, it is only logical & rational to get both points of view. Apparently, you don't think so." As noted, you are incorrect.

"There is NO ONE who has ever signed his pledge to debate. Its right on his website. A couple of people initially agreed to debate him but later backed out BECAUSE he wouldn't talk about religion." Sure, '*he* wouldn't talk about religion.' His website has a large dose of religious belief, but *he* won't mention it.

"4) He DOES NOT introduce religion." See redward's quotation about the origin of the moon.
"Debating whether there is a supernatural 1st cause to the universe is not introducing religion." Of course not, but he is introducing a religious/supernatural component, which is not scientific. "Many scientists & philosophers support the "1st uncaused cause" in relation to the start of the universe." Right, big bang, possibly. Of course, what philosophers have to say is irrelevant.

"5) his sources are not quite old." He updates his book, "In The Beginning" quite regularly." Funny, his website must not be updated as regularly.

"6) Scientific theories get debated all the time. Because a few scientists disagree with you initially, doesn't mean that your theory won't get refined & updated. ... " And these changes did not come about by "debate" as Brown wants, but vigorous 'debate' in the literature. Note also that the consensus did not come about as a result of a "debate", but because of testing and data.

"7) You really need to go to Dr. Brown's website and read it for yourself instead of letting other places form your opinions for you. It is only logical & rational to hear both sides of the issue before deciding anything." But, of course, I did spent a good bit of time reading his website - thank you for the insult. Overall, I would call it mildly entertaining pseudo-scientific junk. [And I formed that opinion by myself.]

Curiously, although you may have given this before, with 'scientist3' as a handle, just what is your scientific background?

Creationists Reach Out to Teachers with Darwin Bibles

C.P. Steinmetz »

Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:14 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

scientist3, the reason no one debates Walt Brown is:
1. Scientific progress does not grow by debate, but by evidence.
2. When such a debate has been offered, he wiggles out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist).
3. The first thing he does is introduce religion - there is a supernatural first cause. So, he leaves science behind, yet wants scientific debate.
4. Notice how his sources are quite old - he takes an anomaly, builds on it, and then neglects to include later studies that question the original anomaly. In short, as do most if not all creationists, he lies.

Why Gov. Sanford Should Resign

C.P. Steinmetz »

Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:06 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

The author totally ignores the actual reason Gov. Sanford should resign. It is not because of his private (now public) sex life. Rather, the issue is that he abandoned his role as Governor, and left the state legally leaderless. For this he should be impeached.
And, a politician who bring a pig to the legislature is not someone to admire, rather, this is a true indication of the man's instability.

Texas Senate Rejects Confirmation of Creationist

C.P. Steinmetz »

Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:49 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

re: "
So you concede that the whole defense of evolutionary theory rests on a foundation of logical fallacy?

Please, science is better than this. It is the reason that the majority doesn't take evolution (or rather, macro-evoltion) seriously. Such an approach as stated above is the makings of madcap and swindle."

abhodim, you sure have the standard religionist tactics down cold, viz, taking statements out of context, inferring totally misleading meanings, making false claims, etc.

Texas Senate Rejects Confirmation of Creationist

C.P. Steinmetz »

Sun May 31, 2009 9:43 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul; the source you requested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Texas Senate Rejects Confirmation of Creationist

C.P. Steinmetz »

Sun May 31, 2009 7:43 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

abhodim, thank you for the response.

I must disagree with you however. You state that: "I find the members of DI to be intelligent scientific types who have concerns about the factuality or feasiblity of evolution as it has been presented. To confuse ID with creation science is poor understanding of either."

Two of the governing goals of the DI are: "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

So, there is no way I can view anyone associated with this goal as "scientific". This is religion - even Judeo-Christian religion - and as such is truly "Creation Science" in a tuxedo (as the saying goes).

So, it is just and no wonder that the "usual responses [from the scientific community] degenerate to ad hominum ([my] post, for example) or ad bacculum (end your tenure as professor)."

Texas Senate Rejects Confirmation of Creationist

C.P. Steinmetz »

Sun May 31, 2009 11:28 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

abhodim, you make a very interesting and revealing statement. "But if scientists have issues with the theory, we might grant evolution is controversial. Long, Wells, Berlinski are not church goers, but have basic problems with the concepts of evolution ..."

At least two of these folk are associated with the Discovery Institute - which wants to replace science with religion. In fact, the DI claims you can't be a Christian and believe in Evolution.

Ergo, those folk are no longer "scientists", but religionists. Scientists may disagree with Evolutionary mechanisms, but the only "controversy" over Evolution is that claimed by religious folk trying desperately to refute science because is conflicts with their religious belief.

Unfortunately, the general public has already been polluted by religious ideas before they are introduced to science, which means they will by into those phony "controversy" arguments.

Texas Senate Rejects Confirmation of Creationist

C.P. Steinmetz »

Sat May 30, 2009 11:11 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul, isn't the Internet wonderful. Even though we live in two different universes, we can still communicate.

In my universe, "150 years ago the theory of evolution was[not]widely accepted." In fact, Darwin and Wallace had just developed the theory, and only printed it in 1859. While many learned people gradually accepted evolution, the theory was not accepted widely until the 1930s. In fact, since the theory's inception, religionists have been vociferously opposed to the theory and even to evolution itself.

You state, "Yet, today's evolutionists say quite a bit of it was wrong and the concept is simply growing in scientific knowledge." Also in my universe, that is the way scientific knowledge advances - as things are shown to be wrong, they are discarded.

In my univese, only anti-science and scientifically ignorant religionists talk as though the theory started and *ended* with Darwin. In short, Darwin died 127 years ago, and the theory has been refined since his death. So yes, "... Darwin was wrong in quite a bit of what he said," but it is hardly double talk.

In my universe, we do not continue to teach the parts of evolutionary theory that have been shown to be wrong - as opposed to anti-science religionists who continue to post outdated data and call it current - they lie about the data and state of the theory.

Back to my original statement: "The concept of academic freedom does not encompass trying to convince your students of views that have been shown to be wrong."

Creationism and ID have been conclusively shown (and are easily shown) to be nothing but religion in disguise - not scientific theories. As religion, they can be shown to be shown to not fit the data, and are worthless explanations.

"I think our schools would be much better off if we simply dropped the whole evolution/creation thing all together and taught our children the basic science they are so sorely lacking. Many of our HS grads can't even make change let alone understand the math of science." However, evolution and associated theories *are* basic science. Your solution would be to throw out science along with non-useful religious explanations. Except, of course, those worthless religious explanations would still be forced upon the children.

"Teaching items like evolution instead of insuring our students understand science as a whole is the red herring! This is why we cannot compete on a global level." I think you will find that U.S. students cannot compete because they are denied science education in favor of non-scientific - even anti-science - religious education.

Actually then, getting rid of this person from the school board is one small but proud step in rescuing Texas and its students from the pit of ignorance.

Texas Senate Rejects Confirmation of Creationist

C.P. Steinmetz »

Fri May 29, 2009 9:41 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

believer, "Academic Freedom in our schools!!" is an outworn red herring. You are obviously not familiar with academic environments. The concept of academic freedom does not encompass trying to convince your students of views that have been shown to be wrong. For example, you cannot teach the "bad air" theory of illness, or a "flat earth" model - other than to discredit them or to show how we arrived at current knowledge. The same thing holds for Creationism and Intelligent Design.

You use the term "Liberals". Two points:
1. The issue here is science, not political or moral ideologies. So, you are incorrect to characterize science supporters as "liberals."
2. Do you really think and categorize people in simplistic terms, such as "liberal" or "conservative?" The world is much more complex than you give credit.

Students Protest Removal of Religious Graduation Speakers

C.P. Steinmetz »

Mon May 25, 2009 11:17 am Agree: 7   Disagree: 7

Graduation should be celebrating education, not faith. Speeches should be about educational attainment, not religious belief.

Go ACLU.

Students Protest Removal of Religious Graduation Speakers

C.P. Steinmetz »

Mon May 25, 2009 11:15 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 5

Graduation should be celebrating education, not faith. Speeches should be about educational attainment, not religious belief.

Go ACLU.