Courtesy of Stephen Wells:
"Creationism is biology for people who think the animal kingdom consists of horsies, doggies, kitties and fishies."
No details needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Fighting for science and reason in a faith-based world
ScienceAvenger
Blogroll
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(276)
-
▼
April
(33)
- The Bots are Coming
- Disney: "It's Fast", not "a fact"
- Spector Switches to Democrats
- There's a 50% Chance They Understand What a 50% Ch...
- Closer to Another Earth
- Bill Murchison Gets Taken Down by his Commenters
- Thor vs Jesus
- Empty Storm
- Lightning Tornado Photo
- Video Comparison on Gay Marriage Arguments
- Great Definition of Creationism
- How to Attract Base Airline Employees: Give them a...
- Obama's High Speed Rail Plan vs The Electoral Map
- Darwin Award Trainee: Woman vs Polar Bear
- James Dobson is Inadvertantly Right on the Culture...
- Teabagging - It's Just Surreal
- Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam!
- The Tea Parties: Bad History, Bad Civics
- Christopher Hitchens Plays the Lion to Christian T...
- Easter: A Story that Needed an Editor
- Panicked GOP?
- Gay Marriage Ban Trends: 2% a Year Progress
- Teabagging Congress
- Frank Gaffney's "Code Words" = Making Shit Up
- Oklahoma Hermeneutics
- Fabulous Video on Open-Mindedness
- More Denials of Reality from the Anti-Gay Marriage...
- Bill Maher on Where Our Loyalties Should Be
- John Shimkus: Idiot of the Month
- Stephen Lynch's America
- Jim Webb and our Flawed Prison System
- Coyotes in the Hood
- Simplicity in Action: A Townhall Exchange on the ...
-
▼
April
(33)
About Me
- ScienceAvenger
- I have a mathematics background, an interest in science, and an unapologetic impatience for sloppy thinking. This puts me at odds with both right and left. It's high time the rational scientific viewpoint got the rabid proponent it deserves. I fight nonsense so the scientists don't have to. The blog is not necessarily about science, but rather is a scientific view of the world. Rational, civilly expressed, factually supported thought-out opposing views are welcome. Disparaging, irrational, intentionally obtuse, troll-like whack-a-mole, quote-mining posts will be dispatched without hesitation or apology, as will tit-for-tat partisan "the other side does it too" political gamesmanship, and opinions of what topics I should be writing about. We don't do that here.
8 comments:
Oh, that's bloody brilliant! My biologist mother-in-law will get a kick out of that! :D
So people like Robert Grossetest, Gregor Mendel and Louis Pasteur are merely exceptions that prove the rule, or they make a mockery of the "rule"?
Neither. They are people from another era and should be judged as such, not by modern standards. The implicit assumption of such statements, that scientists and thinkers from from antiquity who held notions we know to be bizarre today would have held those same notions were they to have lived today is absurd in the extreme.
And BTW, exceptions to not prove anything except that said rules are not 100% perfect, but then, evry thinking person should understand this already.
I'm pretty sure that Grosseteste did not believe in the germ theory of disease. Maybe we should revisit that idea as well.
Exactly TF. If we examined the beliefs of thinkers of old, we'd find all sorts of idiocy, by todays standards. They were racists and sexists, often didn't know about things we consider basic, like cells, atoms, a sun-centered solar system, and the waning value of the horse. Creationist reference to thinkers of old is just another example of cherry-picking towards a desired end, rather than an honest evalaution of data prior to drawing a conclusion.
"Creationism is biology for people who think the animal kingdom consists of horsies, doggies, kitties and fishies."
No details needed EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT /MODERN DAY/ CREATIONISM, AND I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT CERTAIN TYPES OF CREATIONISM, NOT THE KIND THAT, SAY, FRANCIS COLLINS BELIEVES IN. I SHOULD EXCLUDE HIM FROM MY MOCKERY BECAUSE HE'S A MUCH BETTER SCIENTIST THAN I AM.
Noooo, I should exclude Francis Collins because he's not a creationist. He's a Christian, yes, but he accepts evolutionary science. It's the second part that matters, not the first. He's no more a creationist than Einstein.
As a matter of record he's a better scientist than me, true, since I'm not a scientist at all, nor have I ever claimed to be.
Was there a point to all that spittle?
EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT /MODERN DAY/ CREATIONISMI think that the word "is" covers that pretty well. It was OK to believe in demons causing sickness a few centuries ago. These days it is a sign that you've missed out on modern science.
Really, Alex. You're getting a little scary.
Post a Comment