Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 11-26-2002, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:


Ha! Hey.

The funny thing is that technically, I myself would agree with this statement. Technically, I am skeptical of all claims, (in the true sense, that I reqire evidence to accept them). And who doesn't encourage careful examination of the theory?

The Darwinist establishment who persecute anyone who questions their sacred religion.

beausoleil · 11-26-2002, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:


Ha! Hey.

The funny thing is that technically, I myself would agree with this statement. Technically, I am skeptical of all claims, (in the true sense, that I reqire evidence to accept them). And who doesn't encourage careful examination of the theory?

If I was not aware of the purpose of this petition thing, I might very well have put my pen to it.

I would sign it - I'm not going to pretend science is a religion just for the political end of defeating fundamentalists. Of course I doubt evolution, if this is what it doubting it means.

Doubting Didymus · 11-26-2002, 08:27 PM

First, I would require their definition of 'skeptical'. If it means "should be accepted or regected only on the basis of the supporting evidence" then yes, I would sign it (as I would sign the same document on any other theory). If, as I suspect, they really mean "doubts that darwinism is a decent theory", then obviously there is a problem.

Arrowman · 11-26-2002, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
I wonder if you could find 100 historians who doubt the holocuast or 100 doctors who deny that HIV causes AIDS...

Easily. Give me enough time and I'll find 100 "scientists" (using the same broad definition used by DI) who believe the earth is flat.

The pathetic thing is that they've got only 100 signatures. Unfortunately, the general public will think that 100 is a significant number.

Albion · 11-26-2002, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Meanwhile, a Zogby Poll released today shows overwhelming public support--81 percent--for the position that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 10 percent support presenting "only the scientific evidence that supports" Darwin's theory. (Less than 10 percent said "Neither" or "Not sure.")

Well, heck, the PBS series DID present the evidence against evolution, that's what the entire last episode ("What About God?") was about. Oh, the SCIENTIFIC evidence against it. Well, if there had been, maybe they would have.

I wonder how many of the scientists realised the purpose behind that statement they signed on to. If they were just being srupulously honest, they need to be told that honesty is dangerous when you're dealing with creationists; you have to be as duplicitous as they are if you aren't going to really regret it. I mean, let's face it, Darwin would have probably signed it too (assuming he hadn't understood the real purpose behind it); in his book he said quite clearly that natural selection wasn't the only process going on.

lpetrich · 11-26-2002, 09:14 PM

I think that we ought to think of some equal-time proposition that would get the creationists by the balls -- something that will make them react indignantly.

Something like having discussions of Jesus Christ give equal time to the hypothesis that he had been a myth.

RufusAtticus · 11-27-2002, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:
I wonder how many of the scientists realised the purpose behind that statement they signed on to.

Well NCSE did some digging and found that the statement isn't as cracked up as the DI would have the public believe.

<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9763_doubting_darwinism_through_cre_4_8_2002.asp" target="_blank">Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License</a>

KC · 11-27-2002, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
I think that we ought to think of some equal-time proposition that would get the creationists by the balls -- something that will make them react indignantly.

Something like having discussions of Jesus Christ give equal time to the hypothesis that he had been a myth.

Or this, from<a href="http://www.churchofsatan.org/main.html" target="_blank">The Church of Satan</a>:

Quote:

CREATION

The universe comes from the One (ain or no-thing) and returns to it. The first cause is not an explosion like the so-called Big Bang, but the emergence of the yang and yin, Satan and Babalon, who divide and become two opposing forces. They then subdivide and are split apart by the expansion of the universe. These divisions create primary forms which help the co-creators weave the fabric of the universe. During the contraction phase, the two forces slowly recombine and finally realize perfection as One (Big Crunch). Since the universal constant is change, a thing which is perfected cannot stand and so, another expansion occurs and a new universe is formed. This process continues ad infinitum...

Cheers,

KC

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-26-2002, 08:27 PM	#13
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	First, I would require their definition of 'skeptical'. If it means "should be accepted or regected only on the basis of the supporting evidence" then yes, I would sign it (as I would sign the same document on any other theory). If, as I suspect, they really mean "doubts that darwinism is a decent theory", then obviously there is a problem.

11-26-2002, 09:14 PM	#16
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I think that we ought to think of some equal-time proposition that would get the creationists by the balls -- something that will make them react indignantly. Something like having discussions of Jesus Christ give equal time to the hypothesis that he had been a myth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.