<p>So, if one’s religious views makes his science wrong, then certainly all evolutionists who are atheists must also be wrong.<br>
<a href=“http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index_np.html[/url]”>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index_np.html</a></p>
<p>How “objective” do you think someone like Richard Dawkins can be if he has views that “God is a delusion, religion is a virus”?</p>
<p>No attacks, CGM, just pointing out that in #296-297 you posted someone else’s writing without explaining what your point was. FountainSiren tends to state a position and use quotes to bolster same. Or to post quotes, and then offer a reasoned critique. I suppose the reason you posted what you did is obvious to you, but it’s less so to some of the rest of us.</p>
<p>No, I showed at the top, it was the full quote I started earlier. And a scientist should go in objectively, not out to destroy…how can you trust the findings of someone who set out to destroy a scientific theory, and lo and behold, all his findings support his declaration made years before. </p>
<p>I am talking about Wells, the scientist quoted to me, who has publically, proudly proclaimed he is out to destroy Darwinism.</p>
<p>Can you trust his findings? Can you? I can’t.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, what do you think of Well’s own words, his declaration, his mission in life? </p>
<p>You have shown your support of ID, what do you think of this one scientist whose mission, through prayer, discussions with Rev Moon, and theological study, declared he would destroy Darwinism and was ready for battle, all before he even started his scientific research?</p>
<p>Tell me what you think of Wells and his own words of battle.</p>
<p>It was funny, I never made any judgements about a religion, Unification Church, yet I was vilified for even mentioning that the Scientist went to Theology Seminary there. He also went to Yale and Berkely. All facts.</p>
<p>Suddenly, the KKK was brought into the discussion. So it seems others judged the Unification Church, not me. (I do have my Opinions, but to share would seem pointless). I just wanted to state facts, and when I did, I was attacked. That I find very telling. I quoted the Scientist. I was attacked.</p>
<p>Quite frankly, I don’t know squat about Wells nor do I care what his personal views may be. If the entire notion of ID revolved around his findings and his belief system, then his views may warrant more scrutiny. However, you seem to believe that if you can find fault with one person who is an advocate of ID that you have single-handedly killed the entire field. I wouldn’t flatter yourself that way if I were you.</p>
<p>BTW, you are good at demanding answers to your questions, so how about answering mine. How can a devout, outspoken atheist like Richard Dawkins be viewed with any credibility when he has such anti-theist views?</p>
<p>British philosopher Anthony Flew, who taught at Oxford, Aberdeen, and Reading Universities, made his name in the middle of the last century around debates about how to verify or falsify arguments. He insisted that religious beliefs cannot meet scientific tests of validity and therefore have no rational grounds for assent. And so he argued for decades.
Investigation into DNA has, he claims, “shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050303-115733-9519r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050303-115733-9519r.htm</a></p>
<p>{I dont know driver, this cut/paste business is absolutely intoxicating; Im thinking of convertingI could be the life of the party! Do ya think I should C/P the whole article a post at a time? The anticipation is simply to-die-for}</p>
<p>"Atheism’s other Achilles’ heels are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name. "</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/world/2005...15733-9519r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washtimes.com/world/2005...15733-9519r.htm</a></p>
<p>[I want to add something, but I’m not sure what it could be–wait…I know:aaarrgh!]</p>
<p>Because science is science. Is science. Science has no religion. And it shouldn’t. Its like saying, well, doctor get down and pray with me and heal my knee problem. Medicine is medicine. Religion is Religion. Science is Science.</p>
<p>So, you trust one of the most outspoken proponents of ID…he is everywhere in the ID community, he is not just one person. There are a few spokepeople for ID, and he is one. His books, his studies, his articles, so to ignore him and his mission in life is being blind. His science is used by many ID proponents. His studies are all over their websites. He is quoted. So, in the small world that is scientific ID proponents, he is important.</p>
<p>And, I don’t flatter myself. I was quoted from this Wells, I did some research, which FountainSiren did not do as to Wells credentials, and I found some telling information, which you deny has any importance. </p>
<p>Arrogance goes both ways.</p>
<p>…hear me roar!!!</p>
<p>[Ok, I can’t take it any more; that will be enough of that…I think it kills brain cells anyhow]</p>
<p>The WashingtonTimes…interesting choice of paper…I am sure the choice was a concious one</p>
<p>So, I guess no answer to my question then.</p>
<p>
Ha! Love it. Anticipating the next round, yes the article was published in the Washington Times, but it was generated by the staunchly left/secular UPI. Good find, FS.</p>
<p>I did answer it. I will be clearer. Science is Scieince. Religion has no place in science. I trust Dawkins, an Atheist. Wells is a Moonie. He can be a Moonie, but when Wells made a declaration he would detroy darwinism. Destroy it. Nice science there. Before he even studied it. THat is the issue I have.</p>
<p>And if Dawkins says their is not God in Science, I agree.</p>
<p>When did atheism become a necessary condition of science?</p>
<p>[what if they say their God is Science?..just a thought…and by the way, wouldn’t that also prohibit a certain self-described Catholic?]</p>
<p>So, you think someone who is not just an atheist but someone who views religion as a “virus” can objectively explore science but Wells cannot? Well, I guess we know how objective you are on this topic.</p>
<p>
I assume you mean Darwin. Did he really promote atheism? I don’t really know. Lots of people, from Marx to Stalin to Sanger appropriated his theory to bolster their own theories. However, the fellow you quote, CGM, makes it clear that he is out to “destroy” the notion that evolution–which he clearly accepts as science–is incompatible with a belief in intelligent design. OK, “destroy” may be an overly dramatic choice of words, but many scientists set out to prove or disprove particular concepts. That’s just human nature, it’s what drives people–their personal passions. Doesn’t mean that their personal passions necessarily cloud their judgement though, which you seem to assume. Wells–the man you chose to quote at length–clearly believes in evolution. He doesn’t agree with those who choose to interpret Darwin’s work as proof of a random universe. Which is basically what the rest of us have been saying here, ad infinitum.</p>
<p>I was asked a question about a scientist. See above. </p>
<p>But he said it. Destroy has a very clear meaning and to pretend he meant something else? I see, deny the scientists own words. Ahhhh, I get it. He followed Rev Moons advice, called Evolution EVIL (yes those nasty capitals) and set out to destroy it. Calling something EVIL seems pretty clear to me. Science is EVIL. Who knew?</p>
<p>SO someone calling something EVIL is fine with you’all. Talk to each other. </p>
<p>He called Darwins Theory of Evolution EVIL!!! </p>
<p>But, ignore that part of his little paper. Ignore his mission in life. Ignore the source of his found passion. Ignore he brought in his religion. Ignore that. </p>
<p>And I guess you didn’t get your CHoice of newspaper and its meaning…</p>
<p>The science of ID has been refuted as infinitum by scientists worldwide. That is undeniable.</p>
<p>
Refutation is different from denial. Show me a refutation.</p>
<p>There is no point. I can. I can show you links. I can show you science. I can show you so much, but it doens’t matter. People that think calling evolution evil does not show an agenda will not be open to anything, that much is clear.</p>
<p>The WashingtonTimes is Rev Moon’s paper. Just an aside. So pretty much anything thing having to do with religion from that paper has to be taken with a grain of skeptisim.</p>
<p>Peace out.</p>
<p>Dawkins is a well-known contemporary evolutionary biologist.</p>
<p>Darwin, in fact, worried that his theories contradicted the Bible.</p>
<p>As for whether being a theist or an a-theist is necessary for studying science, neither is a prerequisite.</p>
<p>What <em>IS</em> necessary is an objective mind, with a conclusion that is NOT defined from the beginning. I repeat that there is no evidence for intelligent design, and it’s not even a theory that explains much. For example, intelligent design cannot explain why men have nipples. Or why people get cancer. Evolutionary theory and modern biology actually explain both pretty well, IMHO</p>