Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Mike Miller wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Christian M. Cepel wrote:
There are no NAS or Nobelists because of those who commute those
honors do not hold similar beliefs and as a whole they are very
abusive and intolerant of those who do. Take Mike as an example.
It's never been enough for him to agree to disagree or to say I
disagree with your theories and/or beliefs, but still respect you as a
person. Quite the contrary, you are told you are a fool, or stupid,
and that you have no value as a scientist and indeed have no right to
claim the distinction.
The reason that you have no value as a scientist is that you are not
taking a scientific approach to the problem. That isn't even a
possibility for you. You are a religious person trying to promote your
religion. When science and data conflict with your prior beliefs you
fight it. A scientist keeps an opened mind and tries to construct his
views based on data, evidence and logic. You can't do that if you feel
that you must defend ancient creation myths.
If you look at the way some of you approach me - Vern for example - they
want to tell me what's what. The attitude is "Here - look at this -
tell me why this doesn't show that evolutionary theory is wrong." In
the email I'm responding to now you have told me once again how things
are. You claim to know what scientists and Nobelists are like but I'm
not sure how many scientists you know. I think you couldn't know very
many. I think, once again, that you are inventing a convenient defense
of your religion and you don't really care what the facts are. Jon and
I are scientists and we have repeatedly contradicted your claims about
what scientists are like, but you won't listen to us because it is not
convenient for your argument in favor of your creation myth. If you
wanted to know about evolutionary science, you would not have to write
to this list, you could just get some books and read them.
For decades scientists made the mistake of engaging with people like you
in a "constructive dialogue" intent on informing you. It turned out
that you didn't give a shit, so the new strategy has been mocking
derision. You asked for it, you got it. Many scientists who used to
debate with Creationists have decided that it is counterproductive
because it makes it seem like there is a controversy and some validity
to the Creationist view, but it has no validity. None. You can't
dismiss science for decades and expect to be taken seriously by scientists.
Unfortunately I have come to the place where I am agreeing with Mike here.
My belief in the Christian God came about because of an honest search
for the truth. Because of my personal experiences, I have come to very
strongly believe that the Bible truly is the word of God. Thus when I
thought that the Bible taught an anti-evolution viewpoint, I didn't
accept evolution, because I considered the Bible greater than the
scientific method. But that was the only way I could argue my position,
because as much as it pains me to say this, even then I could see that
the anti-evolution movement really had very bad scientific arguments.
We should all be engaged in the search for truth, and we should accept
it whatever it may be.
Stephen
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact