As some of you can remember, I made mention of George Claassen in my blog post called The gene and homosexuality - the sequel on September 12. He is the one who is all for evolution and none for religion or as he calls it superstition in his latest article titled Stand up against superstition!.
In this article he uses the usual method of intimidation... numbers! 38 Nobel prize winners wrote a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education to maintain Darwinian evolution as the sole curriculum on science. So what?
Here is a list of scientists in all fields who are creationists:
Truth is not a democracy George Claassen!
Just thinking...
3 comments:
Dicks is well named. His argument is weak and I suggest that he supported an apartheid regime because the church said so. Truth is not democracy, you're right. So don't hide behind the numbers and size of the christian cult and give a 10th of your salary to science research. A much more worthy cause.
Just a thought...
Anonymous said:
"Dicks is well named."
You have convinced me with this argument. I must say, your powers of argumentation is indeed profound!
Insulting me shows more about you than it shows about me. But, hey, there are all sorts around the internet.
You obviously don't like the fact that there are many scientists out there that do not believe the drivel coming from the new atheists.
Mr Dicks, science is not choosing what you believe and what you don't. It's taking the evidence and then assessing likelihood by the burden of proof. Here's an example:
If you were accused of murder, because a rumour spread that said that you were there on the day and you had motive. Now somebody comes forward saying that they saw you there.
On the contrary you were at home alone and made one phone call from home right slap bang in the middle of the murder.
However, in spite of having a witness and telephone records the judge rules that the rumours are true because they were spread first.
Is that then truth? Is the rumour true because people have belief in it or is the eye-witness telling the truth because you were actually on the phone?
I think it's a very dangerous path for humanity to stay on this course of believing "the rumour" of faith or religion in general over the proof. Although the phone call does not prove you did not commit the murder, it does however make it improbable that you could, since you were at home and could not have driven there and back in the window available.
Science proves that God is improbable, but keeps an open mind that if God decided to send some irrefutable proof like that of fossils on the beaches of Brighton and Hove, then science will adjust accordingly.
I'll leave you with a thought:
Why did God take so long to reveal himself to the Asian communities? Why are they doomed to go to hell purely for being born? Why did God create them only to send them to Hell? Awfully spiteful or maybe further evidence that God does not exist. Deal with it and open your mind to the beauty that real science brings.
Post a Comment