Snowflakes aren't special, you have no meaning, and that's good

Kamarling said:
Perhaps your definition of jerk and mine are different and while you see Krauss taking a stand, I see an unnecessary personal attack. But ok, we can agree that Krauss - for all his arrogance - couldn't make a good case (despite the cheers from the audience).

I read somewhere that he was primed for the debate by his good friend Richard Dawkins yet I find it significant that Dawkins has avoided debate with Meyer, yet others have been prepared to do just that.

Again, I apologise for the diversion but I'd like to post a natural follow-up the to the previous video even though Krauss is not involved. It still speaks to the materialist bias in the scientific community.The following is a video I'd recommend because it is a panel comprised of scientists and philosophers from both sides of the argument. This is the video which contains the contention from one of the critics of ID (Dr. Hoffman) that ID cannot be considered by scientists because it is outside of science - that it invokes something that is non-materialistic and science is about materialism (naturalism). Move to 1h 14m 40s into the video for the actual quote. By the way, Meyer has no migraine in this one so he's even more impressive and the whole debate (another long one) is worth another couple of hours of your time, IMHO.

Click to expand...
Kamarling,

I really liked your ID debate video. Would you like to present it in the Critiques of science thread. It is a wonderful example, of many of the debates in science between an entrenched scientific 'consensus', and those pushing to overcome the consensus. It was notable how the team of conventional scientists tried to raise the idea that if ideas were not published in a peer reviwed journal, only for Stephen Meyer to point out that the journal editor that let him publish a paper was harassed in a quite extraordinary way.

David
 
David Bailey said:
Kamarling,

I really liked your ID debate video. Would you like to present it in the Critiques of science thread. It is a wonderful example, of many of the debates in science between an entrenched scientific 'consensus', and those pushing to overcome the consensus. It was notable how the team of conventional scientists tried to raise the idea that if ideas were not published in a peer reviwed journal, only for Stephen Meyer to point out that the journal editor that let him publish a paper was harassed in a quite extraordinary way.

David
Click to expand...

I can re-post it there (edit: have done so now) if you like, David. I should point out that the journal editor you speak of is Richard Sternberg who was subject to intimidation at the Smithsonian. Those who deny that claim are quick to point out that Sternberg was a closet creationist all along as demonstrated by the fact that he now works a a research scientist at the Biologic Institute which is funded by the Discovery Institute.

Now, I am not all that comfortable with the funding of research by the Discovery Institute which has religious and political affiliations that give me cause for concern. However, in the end it comes down the the science as presented to the world and if there are questions about Darwinism that need to be answered, the Darwinists should not be answering by attacking the source of the funding. After all, they don't seem to mind at all that Dawkins and his crowd are supported by fee-paying atheist organisations.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/#

By the way, Sternberg's case was featured in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ...

 
Last edited:
Kamarling said:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/#
Click to expand...

Wow, that article left me shocked.

The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.
Click to expand...

I knew he had some membership policy going. That part had me laughing though. I would have loved to read the comments, I am guessing they revamped the site because they are all gone. I highly doubt an article like that had 0 comments.
 
Kamarling said:
Scientist: I found some interesting effects that suggest telepathy.
Materialist: No you didn't. Telepathy doesn't exist and there's never been any evidence to suggest that it does.
Scientist: I think I can show you evidence if you let me work on it.
Materialist: You can't work on it because science is about the natural world and you are talking about a supernatural cause.
Scientist: What if I work on it on my own time?
Materialist: Then we will dismiss you as a pseudo-scientist and your career will be in the toilet.
Click to expand...

That is so painfully true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top