|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 14, 2009 18:17:29 GMT
Jerry Coyne appears to have noticed James's latest effort on Comment is Free whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/a-defense-of-accommodationism-and-another-misunderstanding/This person is either joking or simply hasn’t immersed him/herself in the debates or in the c.v.s of their participants. For crying out loud, I have always been allied with religious people in attacking creationism. For example, I wrote a book on the evidence for evolution. What I won’t do is suppress my view that people who claim that religion and science are compatible are victims of bad philosophy. You can obviously defend Darwinism without cozying up to the faithful. As far as I can see, none of the new militant fundamentalist atheists have ever threatened to stop attacking creationism if organizations such as the NCSE and AAAS continue their accommodationism. As P. Z. Myers has pointed out, it is not we atheist/scientists but the religious scientists who threaten to withdraw from the creation/evolution battles unless the other side shuts up about religion. Do we threaten to withdraw our support if Kenneth Miller, the NCSE, and others continue to espouse accommodationism? I don’t think so.Has anyone noticed from the comments just how crazy Lucy Q is?. Literally beyond belief. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/14/science-religion-coyne
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jun 14, 2009 18:27:32 GMT
Sorry to disagree Humphrey, but Paulchina was my favourite:
Hannam - "Here are numerous examples of supposed conflicts which weren't so."
paulchina - "BLEEEEEEEERRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHsusperstition"
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Jun 14, 2009 18:42:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 14, 2009 18:44:31 GMT
PaulChina 'You don't know how reassured I am to hear this revelation! Now I can look upon all the religious inquisitions in history with a hugely more sympathetic eye.
Breathtaking!
Religion is automatically in conflict with science because it is in conflict with reason. Serious conflict. Write an article denying that, I dare you.'Serious Conflict!.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 14, 2009 18:47:00 GMT
I'm still voting LucyQ for the 'Commentisfree' poster with the least brain cells. This is mainly because of what she has written in the past, but also gems like this:
LucyQ
Melvynn Bragg's IOT on the topic of Saul of Tarsus left me feeling rather disappointed in him. The panel was made of Theocons and didn't include a speaker for reason. It is pretty darn clear that Saul, Mohamed and other primitives ** who claim to 'saw the light' were experiencing an epileptic seizures. Back then people didn't have an opportunity to check into a neuroscience clinic for medical help. The downside for humanity is that these guys invented superstitious tales about the experiences and were quite able to convince the ignorant that the brain misfiring was the sign of something supernatural. Surely we all know better today and if a quirky event occurs then it always has a scientific explanation.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Jun 14, 2009 20:38:14 GMT
Friends,
As one commentator on page 3 pointed out, the NAs have proven to embody everything they profess to hate about religious fundamentalism:
"The same is true with fanatical atheists. They too want to outshout everyone around them and think that will prove their points. Another case of "I am right, you are wrong and there is no discussing it". They've only managed to get cheers from others that are identical and have not proven a single point. They too have set the stage for what an atheist is just as the religious fanatics have set the stage for what religion is. Neither are right. Both tend to make most thinking people not take them seriously. It's difficult to take anyone serious that can only rant and rave and what good are cheers if they only come from people exactly as yourselves. You've accomplished nothing."
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jun 14, 2009 21:02:53 GMT
I fully agree with that quote, merkavah. Karma your way.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jun 15, 2009 8:21:31 GMT
I'm still voting LucyQ for the 'Commentisfree' poster with the least brain cells. [/i][/quote] I disagree Humphrey. My vote goes to Robert Boyle
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 15, 2009 9:16:08 GMT
I'm still voting LucyQ for the 'Commentisfree' poster with the least brain cells. [/i][/quote] I disagree Humphrey. My vote goes to Robert Boyle [/quote] Bah. How dare you insult my sock-puppets!.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jun 15, 2009 19:36:21 GMT
Excellent article.
Incidently whatever Robert Boyle has said I don't think he beats Lucy Q's contribution here:
"The so called Shroud of Turin is a Leonardo self-portrait. His image peers from above the decapitated torso of an anonymous person, fixed in salts for posterity. Anyone can see this by viewing the fabric on display in Turin or the copy at St Sulpice, Paris"
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 17, 2009 11:43:11 GMT
Not bad
668 comments and condemnations from PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne and 'Butterflies and Wheels' (o.k the last accolade is a bit dubious).
You should get your own column for that.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 18, 2009 6:05:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by knowingthomas on Jun 20, 2009 5:12:04 GMT
Wow. PZ Myers sure is a disagreeable person.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Jun 20, 2009 8:07:08 GMT
Wow. PZ Myers sure is a disagreeable person. Fanatics are always disagreeable, Thomas.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 20, 2009 8:58:35 GMT
Comment may be free, but intelligence is surprisingly expensive...
|
|