That is what this man is saying

Yeah I know, liek we need ANOTHER evolution/Creationist thread here. But it seems this thing is reaching an apex:



It's going to be interesting case. Because each side is going to have to prove that the other side wasn't trying to hurt the other's career.


My opinion is that I can't believe that there are people out there that still don't want to know the truth. Not just knowing the truth but have that truth scientifically backed step by step.


This goes for both the creationist and the darwinist. This whole fight is just setting science back. Luckily science is broken up in fields, and this squabble has no effect on science as a whole.


Just leaves all of us humans with a black eye.

__________________
"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day."--Rev. Arnold Conrad

The same story, from a less biased source. They weren't trying to hurt his career, they were trying to get him to do the job he was hired to do. Why would anyone apply for a job that requires them to do something they don't believe in? The requirement was clearly there in the job description.

So, he took a job, then refused to do what it called for. If that's not grounds for firing, what is?

__________________
“Stupidity has a certain charm - ignorance does not”

This is the result of philosophers hijacking the scientific world back in the mid 1800s.

So much for 'tolerance' and being "open-minded' to other views. I guess that only applies if you believe in Darwinism.

Interesting...Abraham is not even on the list at the link on the bottom of my sig line, but another scientist from Woods Hole is.

The question seems to be: can a person work in an environment where they do not believe in the key tenets of the organization?

I worked for several years as a publishing representative for a major Lutheran publishing company. I'm a Jew. Yet part of my job was publicizing Christian books!

He wasn't fired because of his belief. He was fired because he wouldn't do what the job he was hired to do required. That Woods Hole employed other creationist scientists demonstrates their tolerance of dissenting beliefs.

And you, like Abraham, understood the nature of the work going in. I suspect if you had sufficient objection to what the task required, you wouldn't have applied for or accepted the position, right? If you had refused to your job on religious grounds, should they have kept you on?

This really cheapens the debate over the freedom of scientific inquiry. He knowingly took a job that required analyzing data in an evolutionary context. Then he refused to do it. That's pretty basic.

I don't believe in the death penalty, should I apply for a job as an executioner?

__________________
“Stupidity has a certain charm - ignorance does not”

I think that we all bend and mold ourselves to our employer's wishes...but refusing to do the job you were hired for because of your beliefs is ridiculous, especially if you knew what was required at the time of hire.

I've sold advertising for programs I thought were dreck. There are some things I won't do, though. I've had men with comb-overs ask me to cut their hair in a comb-over, and I refuse. I've refused to perm gnarly hair. I don't promote products which I think are a bad fit for my clients.

__________________
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/be30300653

Yeah, dudes like Galileo had it real easy before them philosophers mucked everything up. Check your history/dogma. Which brings me to my next point:

Any highly religious person can be a great scientist in any field if they have the sense to know two important things. Science observes the material world and assembles theories to account for its behavior. Most religions, at their core, begin with the irrefutable presumption of a higher being, precluding any theory that would assume otherwise. In short, one who approaches science via religion is, by definition, not being a very good scientist: one must be "open-minded" to any theory, and not just the one that begins, "IN the beginning..." If one keeps the religion out of the science, everyone can be happy, and good science can be done.

Thus, I would suspect that the fellow who got fired was probably not being a very good scientist.

Galileo, on the other hand, was a pretty damn good scientist, but he ran into problems when the church didn't like the fact that his theories ran afoul of the "scientific" system that emerged from the irrefutable presumption of a higher being.

This case sounds like a set-up. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he took the job in the first place so he could play the victim and get media attention for his cause when he refused to do the job.

Yeah, That is a major flaw in Science, "open-minded". Many scientist aren't. No this isn't about Religion. This is about SCIENCE!


You have to have really really really good evidence to prove your "theory" to dismiss a "theory" that has been the mainstream one for years. You first have to smash the "mainstream" theroy and then prove yours. But that is where the fighting begins.

There are scientist out there that DO NOT BELIEVE HIV causes AIDS. So yeah open-minded is something that science has, but isn't put into practice....after all how can you believe in your theory?


The problem I have with "the higher power" theory, is I'm sure the same problem many do:


"Ok, G-d did this...but when did G-d do it? Pin point it on a timeline"

I don't know if Creationist are actually pinning for this knowledge....Since well the Bible has it's own "timeline".

__________________
"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day."--Rev. Arnold Conrad

It AMAZES me how many people still parrot the old Galileo myths without realizing that they've been exposed as frauds:

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/galileo.html

(yes, yes, I realize its from a Catholic website, but that does not change the facts, the research or the references.)

I can't believe how heated the issue of Creationism vs. Darwinism has gotten, especially amongst secularly educated people, and especially in public schools. The Separation of Church and State in this country is starting to get scarily gray. There would have been no question to this debate 20 years ago. Darwinism is partially theory, yes, but the difference in it's theoretical value as compared to Creationism as a theory is that it is based on the scientific method - the basis of science and what is and should be taught in science class. As theoretical as Darwinism may be, it's validity is upheld by factual evidence gathered scientifically since it's inception.

Creationism is not science, it cannot be science, because theories based on faith are not subject to scientific method. There is absolutely nothing scientific about Creationism, and while I have no problem with people choosing a faith and believing in such concepts, projecting them into the scientific realm and forcing secular students to learn "facts" based on faith is incredibly dangerous.

Have you ever known a country run by religion to be a success?

Creationism's place, if anywhere, is in church and Sunday Schools. It's a non-scientific theory based on the faiths of a select group of religions that alienates secular students, students who's religious faith does not include creationism, and stiffles scientific education.

__________________
The idealistic are no longer concerned with influencing public opinion and creating a free world of responsible and ethical social choices, but rather imposing opinion through legislation, mandating these ethics, and outlawing choice in what the loudest sample finds offensive.

Ban the Bans. It's a slippery slope between Idealism and Fascism.