Subject: [SciPol 428] Re: Creation Science Museums

From: "pellis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:08:12 -0700

While I agree with the subtext of LD's message, might I offer a
refinement:

Perhaps their personal interpretations (of whatever), for themselves,
are as valid as anyone else's.

But if those interpretations are to be broadcast or passed on to
others, then I would argue for placing greater weight on
interpretations offered by those who had concentrated their attention
on the topic, as long as that attention included a broad enough
context that it had some relation to the worldview of the community to
which they belong (and which community, in turn, itself belongs...)

Then, perhaps, the learning of the whole could gradually drift away
from the prejudices of those of undeveloped mind, of those terrified
by the modern world.

On Mar 30, 2:05 am, Lloyd Davidson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Au contraire.  Their interpretation of the Bible is just as valid as
> anybody else's.  The idea that a mythologic treatise written a couple
> of thousand years or so ago only has a single possible meaning just
> seems nonsensical.  Whether it has any real meaning or relevance
> today would be a much better question.  Their interpretation is no
> more right or wrong than any other particular interpretation of the
> Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon.
> All religions are equal in their grounding in reality.  They only
> differ in how much mischief they lead to.
>
> Dr. Cas said:
>
> >First of all these people are utterly wrong about what the Bible
> >means, so even on religious and spiritual grounds, never mind
> >scientific ones, their argument is utter twiddle-twaddle.
>
> --
> Lloyd Davidson, Ph.D.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Science and Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email-masked]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email-masked]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/scipol?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

---

From: Lloyd Davidson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:05:57 -0700

Dear Michael,

Yes, I know I sound opinionated on issues I feel strongly about, for 
which I apologize, but I was very emotionally upset after hearing Mr. 
Collins because he is using his fame in one field to sell a point of 
view that I sincerely feel is very damaging to the world at large; 
not just to science but to society as well.   Subverting science is 
not something I can condone, especially when it is espoused by 
somebody as well known as Francis Collins is.  And do you think 
Francis C. is not opinionated?   By all means, share my concerns with 
him.  If he knows evolutionary theory, how on earth could he have 
made the statements he did? It makes his refusal to consider the 
evolutionary theories that conflict with his religious preconceptions 
deeply unethical.  He also talked total nonsense about how the 
universe must have been created just for us and that that was further 
proof of the existence of God.   The whole universe just for us?  How 
vain.  But maybe I misunderstood him.  This Christian view of a 
friendly little God camped out in the sky  deciding which prayers to 
answer and how is howlingly funny, don't you agree?  A God who, after 
creating the universe and waiting 11 or more billion years for us to 
show up, while nearly destroying the earth entirely a couple of times 
or more in the interim, ends up just sitting quietly by (while calmly 
overseeing various holocausts, or at least refusing to intervene) and 
who, as James Joyce depicted him, now sits paring his nails while we 
proceed to destroy his Earth in less than 200 years? This is a 
scenario that would appear silly in a Marvel comic book. How somebody 
with his obvious intelligence could hold such irrational and 
unsupportable views is frankly beyond me.  Francis C. also skirted 
around the issue of stem cell research without really answering the 
question of whether it was ethical or not. It's really impossible to 
have any respect for somebody with such views.

I mentioned nothing that isn't commonly accepted evolutionary theory, 
except the speculation about octopi (which I have a particular 
affection and respect for-- even though I still eat them).  Besides 
intelligent parrots, by the way, ravens turn out to be about as good 
at making tools as Chimpanzees.  There is an article in the latest 
Scientific American about them.  Morals, ethics and other components 
of human behavior clearly have an evolutionary basis, modified in 
their particular expression by societal norms.  I realize Mr. Francis 
might bristle at this, but nothing was stuck into humans by an 
external supernatural being at some magic point in our evolution. 
Not only are gods not necessary to explain the world, a belief in 
them is counterproductive.  How on earth could science work if 
miracles even occasionally occurred? How could you trust an 
experiment if there was any possibility that some external force 
might stick its finger in and mix up the pot?

If you have particular questions, by all means provide them to me but 
I would prefer you do a little research yourself first.  What exactly 
did you disagree with in my admitted diatribe?

Bombastic?  Probably.  Wrong?  I don't think so.  I simply find 
Francis Collin's absurd views about religion to be abhorrent and 
unhelpful in the extreme. If we are going to cure the world's many 
problems before it is truly too late, we need clear minded, rational 
leaders, not superstitious ones.  Bush, by the way, said he was going 
to pray for Tony Snow.   No prayer is going to do a bit of good about 
global warming.  Quite the opposite.

Lloyd

>Mr. Davidson:
>
>Well, you certainly do not lack for opinions nor the desire to visit 
>them on others....regardless of the topic.  I heard Collin's 
>interview, and while I do not agree with many of his premises, I 
>certainly would not  disparage them in the rather vitriolic manner 
>you did.  I know Francis, and I daresay he does know a bit about 
>evolutionary theory.  I cannot address the claims you make, either 
>in the particular or general.  But it would help the tone of 
>discourse, not to mention the edification of those who read this, if 
>you could provide a bit of evidence in support of your sometimes 
>bombastic opinions.  Or at least point the great unwashed among us, 
>myself included, to unbiased references that might be accessed on 
>the internet.  Who knows, maybe an informed debate might ensue.
>
>Michael Patrick
>
>
>
>>Frankly, I don't see why we should give the Jewish or Christian 
>>Bible credit for the Golden Rule, which is simply a basic part of 
>>every human culture, any more than we should give religions credit 
>>for rules like it's best not to kill one another or to steal from 
>>one another.  Every culture, whether secular or religious, requires 
>>such rules to survive.  The fact that evolution has given us the 
>>ability to feel sympathy and empathy is far more important to the 
>>formation of successful societies than any religious education.
>>
>>I was unhappy to hear none-other than Francis Collins say on Public 
>>Radio's Fresh Air yesterday that one of the proofs for God is that 
>>man is the only animal that knows what good is, or words to that 
>>effect.  That's simply nonsense.  Clearly such understandings of 
>>right and wrong have their evolutionary origins in at least other 
>>primates, if not in other families or even orders of mammals.  A 
>>chimpanzee who can only get food by delivering an electric shock to 
>>another chimpanzee will starve itself for several days before doing 
>>so.  And who knows, perhaps even octopi might have the beginnings 
>>of such behaviors, since  they are remarkably intelligent for 
>>invertebrates.  And some birds, such as parrots, at least 
>>experience human type emotions like jealousy, as do cats and dogs.
>>
>>He also said that such feelings in humans are very much in 
>>opposition to natural selection.  Obviously, he knows absolutely 
>>nothing about evolutionary theory, group selection, the role of 
>>altruism in natural selection or any of a number of other 
>>counter-arguments to his simplistic and intellectually dishonest 
>>opinions on the matter.
>>
>>Sorry for the diatribe.  If you can stomach it, you can hear his 
>>interview at: 
>>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9207913
>>
>>Lloyd
>>
>>>I submit that no religion has any grounding in reality today, if 
>>>they ever did in the first place. IMHO, all religions are the folk 
>>>tales of their respective cultures that, at the time, served the 
>>>purpose of social control and understanding the universe in which 
>>>these ancients found themselves. None of them have any relevance 
>>>to today's modern world, except for a few phrases like the Golden 
>>>Rule.
>>>
>>>It's impossible for any religion to be the "one way," because they 
>>>constantly borrowed from each other. There is NOTHING in 
>>>Christianity that wasn't in some other previous religion, 
>>>including the death of God or his offspring to "save" Humanity, 
>>>the Flood, resurrection or the Virgin Birth. It's a well-known 
>>>fact that the Christian New Testament scriptures weren't even 
>>>written down until almost a century after Christ's death. How much 
>>>was changed in that oral tradition, not to mention afterwards by 
>>>clerics?  
>>>
>>>Gregg  
>>>-------Original Message-------
>>>
>>>From: <mailto:[email-masked]>Lloyd Davidson
>>>Date: 3/29/2007 9:58:28 PM
>>>To: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>>>Subject: [SciPol 426] Re: Creation Science Museums
>>>
>>>Au contraire.  Their interpretation of the Bible is just as valid 
>>>as anybody else's.  The idea that a mythologic treatise written a 
>>>couple of thousand years or so ago only has a single possible 
>>>meaning just seems nonsensical.  Whether it has any real meaning 
>>>or relevance today would be a much better question.  Their 
>>>interpretation is no more right or wrong than any other particular 
>>>interpretation of the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or 
>>>Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon.  All religions are equal in their 
>>>grounding in reality.  They only differ in how much mischief they 
>>>lead to.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dr. Cas said:
>>>