9 comments on “Why I Get My Knickers in a Twist.

  1. Ha ha ha! “…even better, History.” But I suspect if religion became an artifact of history, something equally violent would have to take it’s place.

    Surprising about teachers in the UK. From all the surveys I’ve seen, I thought you guys were a country of godless infidels. :-D. Here in the US, one of the most religious countries in the world (i.e. God loves us best), I expect it. Our public education is schizophrenic: they want religion in science classes but refuse to acknowledge religious holidays.

    I’m not sure the school boards realize that Creationism isn’t just a religious viewpoint, it’s a specific religion’s viewpoint. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, doesn’t believe in Creationism and DOES recognize Darwin’s evolution of the human body (with the caveat that the human soul doesn’t emerge through evolution of the body but is created). So, maybe if we can get the religions fighting amongst themselves at the school board meetings (you know, like the monks), science will be safe.

  2. “A body of people that does not understand scientific principles”

    There are many scientists with who believe in intelligent design. In fact, world renowned atheist and evolutionist Professor Antony Flew recently recanted his position on evolution and authored a book arguing intelligent design. He accused Dawkins of being secular bigot and an armature in his use of academic scholarship.

    If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming and conclusive that it excludes the possibility of intelligent design, why are lifelong scientists and evolutionists changing their positions on the issue? The reason why scientists like Professor Flew change their positions on evolution is because the evidence for evolution is neither conclusive nor convincing.

  3. You are not a smart as you think you are. I know it is tough to admit this to yourself. In fact as you are reading this you are saying to yourself how much smarter you are than I am. I find your pathetic existance hillarious. Oh and knickers is a term reserved for british queers. Sweet life dude. Stop wasting my google reader space!

  4. Teresa: I suspect you’re probably right regarding religion becoming an historic artefact. However, at least we would have removed one way of justifying the violence. 🙂

    Some of us do like to give the impression that we are, indeed, a country of godless infidels. 😉 We even lobby the tourist board to try to get them to put it on their posters 😉

    Actually, in education the UK is definitely starting to see creationist tendencies beginning to get what could be construed as a foothold. We already have faith schools, but even without taking them into account the teaching of evolutionary theory itself is already rather limited. Many science teachers are quite simply afraid to bring it up in the classroom (in the sense that they are either afraid that they might offend or afraid in a broader sense, since Islam also takes the creationist viewpoint.)

    Divide and conquer? Now why didn’t I think of that? 😉

    Russ: Antony Flew isn’t exactly a good example. Firstly, he’s a philosopher rather than a scientist. Granted, his understanding of science has — up until fairly recently — always seemed fairly impressive. Nonetheless, it seems to me that when one is talking about evolutionary biology an evolutionary biologist probably has a far better understanding of the finer points than someone coming from a philosophical background.

    That aside, there has been much debate regarding Flew’s possible mental decline and the possible excessive influence of his co-author. In recent interviews, he seems vague at best — and extremely unconvincing.

    I’m afraid we shall have to disagree regarding the conclusiveness of evolutionary theory. We know it to be true. This isn’t a matter of belief. We evolved through the process of natural selection.

    your pathetic: No, my friend, as I read your comment I thought, Will my readers think that this guy is smarter than me? Let’s approve the comment and see…

  5. Ha! Now, I see. I wondered why you approved “your pathetic” when I read it, especially considering for someone claiming intelligence, he can’t even tell the difference between “your” and you’re.

    Well, you know I’m no Atheist, but I know the difference between religion and science. I know what questions can be answered by each field. I don’t confuse my classrooms.

    Anyone supporting Intelligent Design because they say Evolution lacks conclusive evidence has to show the BETTER evidence they possess for Intelligent Design. This is the scientific method. This is what should be going on in science classrooms. I have no problem with naysayers always seeking more facts. Doubt is a healthy scientific tool, but it’s opposite is belief and that is the tool of religion. Show me facts or shut up.

  6. Shouldn’t it be ‘you’re pathetic’? I mean, if you’re going to call someone a dick, at least make sure you’re coming from a position of strength…

    I’m with you Gary, HOWEVER…

    God is just a theory, and, if we acknowledge it through debate, then aren’t we acknowledging its existence simply by talking about it?

    Santa Claus exists in the minds of children because they believe – God is much the same.

  7. I have something of an issue with the poll… I don’t think the sample size is useful, given that there are (IIRC) approx 500,000 teachers in the UK. Similarly, how do we define science teachers? Do we include maths? I ask because maths teachers are notoriously prone in the field of science teachers to be more accepting of Creationism. Also, which teachers were polled? Those in faith schools would skew the results, for example.

    Frankly, the poll seems almost worthless except as a generator for talking points…

    Sorry! 🙂

  8. Professor Flew has been admired and read for decades but now that he no longer holds to evolutionary thought, he is rejected as mentally unstable.

    This is a common tactic toward any in the scientific community, and there are many, that hold to intelligent design. Rather then disproving intelligent design theory with facts, the evolutionist attacks the character of those who oppose them.

    If the theory of evolution remains a theory and not a fact and the theory of intelligent design has equal or even lesser weight, it should not preclude it from being considered and discussed in the classroom. To exclude any theory based on personal bias is not education, it is indoctrination.

  9. Teresa:

    Ha! Now, I see. I wondered why you approved “your pathetic” when I read it, especially considering for someone claiming intelligence, he can’t even tell the difference between “your” and you’re.:

    Exactly 😉

    Well, you know I’m no Atheist, but I know the difference between religion and science. I know what questions can be answered by each field. I don’t confuse my classrooms.

    You know, I think this is very important . To underscore that point I, like you, do not have any objection to creationism being discussed in a classroom situation, however bizarre I consider the subject to be. Like you say, however, don’t confuse the classrooms.

    David: Some people wouldn’t know a position of strength if it poked them in the eye, mate. 😉

    I think you’re right, to a point. I tend to agree with Dawkins’s stance regarding creationists — i.e. not debating with them. However, life occasionally puts you in a position where it’s impossible not to acknowledge these strange ideas. I also think it’s important to “present the alternatives”.

    Mike: oh, good — not too shagged out to be a contrary git, then, eh? 😆 I do certainly take your point, mate. I’ve actually seen conflicting figures which suggest that the number could be considerably lower/higher. However, as a talking point generator, it certainly seems to have done its job rather well 😉

    Russ:

    This is a common tactic toward any in the scientific community, and there are many, that hold to intelligent design. Rather then disproving intelligent design theory with facts, the evolutionist attacks the character of those who oppose them.

    A few points here. Firstly, science is self-correcting. There are many within the science community who hold opposing ideas. Some of our greatest scientific discoveries have had detractors who were not considered “unscientific”, however wrong they may have ultimately been. The science community does not reject scientists who simply have opposing views. Science would not work as successfully as it does if that were the case. The science community merely rejects the unscientific.

    Secondly, science does not have to disprove anything with regard intelligent design. The intelligent design proponents have to prove their position. That, again, is how science works. So far they have not done this. Intelligent design is not science; it’s spin — and bad spin, at that.

    Thirdly, Flew strikes me, personally, as struggling somewhat in recent interviews. I am still not convinced by his current ability. This has nothing to do with bias. It’s observation, plain and simple.

    If the theory of evolution remains a theory and not a fact

    You clearly do not understand what the word “theory” means in a scientific sense: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

    Evolution by natural selection is not merely an idea. It is a fact in the same way that gravity is a fact.

    and the theory of intelligent design has equal or even lesser weight

    It has absolutely no weight from a scientific perspective.

    To exclude any theory based on personal bias is not education, it is indoctrination.

    What has personal bias got to do with this? Intelligent design is not a part of the UK science curriculum for one reason and one reason only as has already been covered more than adequately; it is not scientific.

    I think that with regard creationists, Teresa more than summed it up perfectly. “Show me facts or shut up.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s