“It is fitting that Project Reason participates in the effort to end the 'diplomatic immunity' and in general the 'license to kill' granted to religious institutions. However, it would be better still if this fundraising can somehow directly benefit the affected children themselves, for example, by covering their educational costs in a secular institution. While the consciousness-raising about this issue is at its height, this maybe the time for Project Reason and the Richard Dawkins Foundation to harness the public indignation constructively to institute something like the 'Light of Reason' Scholarships for such disadvantaged children.”
“" Luskin makes the preposterous argument that the "controversy" should be seen solely as a scientific one! Religion, he claims, has nothing to do with the ever-present attacks on evolution."
A quick two-minute experiment will give a clearer picture of whether there is a scientific controversy.
Visit scholar.google.com, the first resource most students of science consult for literature reviews, and type in "Creationism". In the first dozen or so hits, you will notice that the word 'creationism' itself has not quite made it to the scientific lexicon and even in the odd case that it is indeed mentioned, it is treated as a sociological curiosity (I really wanted to say 'sociological pathology') rather than a serious candidate scientific theory. So much for there being a scientific controversy.
Speaking of religion having nothing to do with attacks on evolution, is it a mere coincidence that those who seem to agree with and often reiterate the stand of the Discovery Institute happen to be religious polemicists and rhetoricians of some sort (and that too not mainstream), like Harun Yahya or the International Society for Krsna Consciousness (ISKCON) to name a few?”
WhereIsTheTruth on Apr 9, 2010 at 14:41:43
“Ah, but if you search for "intelligent design" the second entry reads "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design." Hmmm....”
“Perhaps scientists would have preferred a name like "We can find 1000000 people who know that Evolution is falsifiable and has not been falsified yet", but the 'folksy' nature of Facebook as we know enforces some over-simplification and as Dr. Zimmerman implies such a campaign is the best we can do of a bad job.
“Speaking of the question of whether freedom of speech is also a license to misinform, here is part of a discussion at the University of Southern California, triggered by the distribution of Ray Comfort's travesty of the Origin of Species distributed in university campuses nationwide. http://asymptotia.com/2009/11/27/discomfort/”
“I too am unclear about what these 'timeless truths' are. Suffering from the 'liberal hamstring' and bending over backwards to sound reasonable by accommodating some of religion's seemingly benign claims, aren't we ending up allowing religious apologists to resort to their usual babble of "Science has at best provisional truths. Religion has eternal truths." ?”
CLERK on Mar 19, 2010 at 18:06:49
“The Christian Clergy Letter which Mr. Zimmerman is the founder of, concludes: “We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.”
As I stated in a previous post it would be instructive if Mr. Zimmerman, or any of the 12,000 Clergy that support the above referenced statement, would define “religious truth” and provide at least 10 such examples.
“Well written -- very well written -- but frankly, if the Vatican and all its lovely pamphlets and proclamations burnt to the ground, I'd be perfectly happy. I'd rather get intimate with a spork than use anything they've produced as source material. Seriously. As pro-education and information as I am, there isn't a way known to god or man to squirrel the RC back into my good graces.”
“Actually the video I had intended to link in my earlier comment is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6Am1TWgLXg
This one takes head-on the misconceptions about Social Darwinism, though the earlier link constitutes a worthy companion to this one.”
“I seek one clarification from all those who deride Prof. Richard Dawkins as an example of 'what goes when a scientist strays out of the lab'. If indeed you believe that we ought to confine our discourse to what we are most qualified to deal with, and you believe like Steven Jay Gould that science and religion constitute 'non-overlapping magisteria', then I would also expect you to stay that Creationist preachers are an example of 'what goes wrong when non-scientists make scientific pronouncements'. Prof. Zimmerman in this article and Prof. Dawkins in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICro374v1eU) have made it unequivocally clear that serious scientists reject Social Darwinism because Darwinism is out of context while dealing with questions of social organization. Likewise, does it take too much to realize and admit that Biblicalism is out of context while studying the origin of species? What we now need is the faithful to meet us halfway and respond in kind to our rejection of Social Darwinism, by rejecting Biological Biblicalism.”