Christian Vitalism.
3 months ago
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
01 November 2011
23 March 2009
Darwinist rage boy doesn't like academic freedom
Seems to me that darwinist rage boy doesn't like it when people exercize their God given freedom to share their viewpoint. In his worldview, you are only allowed to speak if you agree with him (I know this by personal experience since I was banned from his Reich by criticizing the belief that everything created itself - evolution).
Not happy in teaming up with far left atheistic "science" blogs like Panda's Thumb, darwinist boy has enlisted some wishy washy "republicans" to his evangelistic effort. The last one is Ringo the Gringo.
Suposedly Ringo was schocked - shocked! - that americans would make a museum giving Glory to the Creator, and not giving glory to Darwin. In the creation science musem the same evidence darwinists use to promote the belief that everything made itself is used but this time it is seem from the biblical viewpoint (the accurrate one).
Ringo and darwinist rage boy can't have that, but they cannot be overtly anti-religious or they'll be shunned by true conservatives. So what they do? They claim that the museum is "anti-science".
Yes, it's anti-science if it is in agreement with the Bible, because, as we all know, the Bible hates science. Too bad Isaac Newton (creationist), Faraday (creationist), Maxwell (creationist) and many other scientists were not aware of that.
Another thing worth mentioning is that darwinist rage boy doesn't like the free access to information. This is a major hint that what he believes might be wrong. People who are sure of what they believe don't fear criticism nor the free access to information.
Academic freedom means academic freedom. It does not mean "creationism". What most americans want is the God given freedom to criticize whatever theory they wish, including the theory of evolution. Announcing that the theory of evolution is "science" and that there's no point in criticizing it doesn't do the job. Saying that those who criticize evolution are religious fundamentalists who want to implant a theocracy in the US is nonsense. This is the kind of hype promoted by liberals.
If your theory can't stand scientific criticism, then perhaps it should be taken away from science classes.
Darwinist rage boy may call himself a republican, but he still thinks like a liberal.
Take a look at what bar says about the same subject.
06 March 2009
P.Z. Myers: Americans Who Fund Scientific Research Are an "Ignorant Mob"
P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula has responded to my open letter to the Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology. In my letter, I strongly criticized the Darwinist organization’s endorsement of censorship and its disrespect for academic freedom. I reminded its members that they have a responsibility to the millions of taxpayers who fund their grants, and part of that responsibility entails a modicum of respect and a willingness to accept an open discussion of evolutionary theory in public schools.
Myers replies:
Scientists aren’t parasites. Experimental biologists, physicists, astronomers, chemists, and medical researchers are employees of the people who fund them, generally taxpayers. Most scientists do their work with humility and integrity. They understand, at least implicitly, that they have a responsibility to the public that pays their way. Few scientists engage in censorship, restriction of academic freedom, and boycotts. And they don’t consider such anti-science advocacy a ‘civic responsibility;’ they exercise civic responsibility by welcoming and even encouraging questions about their scientific theories. They respectfully engage those who disagree with their scientific viewpoints. They don’t censor and they don’t boycott, because boycotts and censorship are ideological tactics, not scientific discourse.
I reserve the appellation "parasites" for Darwinists, at least those Darwinists who oppose academic freedom and who sneer at most Americans for whom scientific explanations in nature need not be restricted to unintelligent causes. Many Darwinists — at least Darwinian fundamentalists like Myers — are atheist ideologues who despise the religious beliefs of ordinary Americans who pay their way. Darwinist ‘civic responsibility’ consists of denying other people the freedom to act in accordance with their own views of civic responsibility, which include the civic responsibility to establish educational policy for their own children in their own schools.
Darwinists make their living from ordinary people who they ridicule, censor, and boycott. In this respect they’re not scientists at all; they’re ideologues — atheist fundamentalists — who use science and public funding to advance their metaphysics.
Myers writes:
American taxpayers who fund scientific research are not "ignorant" and they're not a "mob."
The American public is Dr. Myers’ employer, and for many years it has patiently underwritten the Darwinist ideological crusade. Americans’ patience will run out someday, and they will decide to use their hard-earned tax money to employ ethical scientists who respect academic freedom and who advance real science, not atheist metaphysics.
Myers replies:
Now we see exposed the Discovery Institute's opinion of scientists: they are parasites, suckling at the public teat…and that we should be divorced from civic responsibilities altogether.
Scientists aren’t parasites. Experimental biologists, physicists, astronomers, chemists, and medical researchers are employees of the people who fund them, generally taxpayers. Most scientists do their work with humility and integrity. They understand, at least implicitly, that they have a responsibility to the public that pays their way. Few scientists engage in censorship, restriction of academic freedom, and boycotts. And they don’t consider such anti-science advocacy a ‘civic responsibility;’ they exercise civic responsibility by welcoming and even encouraging questions about their scientific theories. They respectfully engage those who disagree with their scientific viewpoints. They don’t censor and they don’t boycott, because boycotts and censorship are ideological tactics, not scientific discourse.
I reserve the appellation "parasites" for Darwinists, at least those Darwinists who oppose academic freedom and who sneer at most Americans for whom scientific explanations in nature need not be restricted to unintelligent causes. Many Darwinists — at least Darwinian fundamentalists like Myers — are atheist ideologues who despise the religious beliefs of ordinary Americans who pay their way. Darwinist ‘civic responsibility’ consists of denying other people the freedom to act in accordance with their own views of civic responsibility, which include the civic responsibility to establish educational policy for their own children in their own schools.
Darwinists make their living from ordinary people who they ridicule, censor, and boycott. In this respect they’re not scientists at all; they’re ideologues — atheist fundamentalists — who use science and public funding to advance their metaphysics.
Myers writes:
... What Egnor proposes here is nothing less than a naked threat to use the ignorance of the mob to attack science. [emphasis mine]
American taxpayers who fund scientific research are not "ignorant" and they're not a "mob."
The American public is Dr. Myers’ employer, and for many years it has patiently underwritten the Darwinist ideological crusade. Americans’ patience will run out someday, and they will decide to use their hard-earned tax money to employ ethical scientists who respect academic freedom and who advance real science, not atheist metaphysics.
Posted by Michael Egnor on March 5, 2009 10:55 AM
