Comments on: More on the Christian Reaction to the NAS

By: Cecil

Cecil — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:18:52 +0000

I’m torn on this issue. I think good scientists accept that we cannot turn a blind eye to the influence creation ideas are having in politics and the public as well as their direct attack on science. Still, is a NAS book the right strategy? Maybe it is. Thus far, nothing else seems to be working…

By: Steve Matheson

Steve Matheson — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:44:25 +0000

Menton a real scientist? A long time ago: his last paper was "High-voltage galvanic stimulation on wound healing in guinea pigs: longer-term effects," published in Arch Phys Med Rehabil (eh?) in 1995. Whatever scientific accomplishments he can boast after a career teaching anatomy, he's busily dismantling with ludicrously ignorant propaganda that should make a sophomore genetics student laugh out loud and, more recently, documented lies about the fossil record. Scientist?!

By: Virgil Samms

Virgil Samms — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:45:40 +0000

David Menton is working for the Creation Museum now? (roll-eyes) He was once an actual scientist.

By: Lorax

Lorax — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:59:09 +0000

There are enough religious folks out there who would accept evolution if they understood that accepting evolution didn’t mean you must reject your religion.
In the perfect world? Yes. Here in reality, you have a bunch of unknown (from the religious persons’ perspective) scientists saying “Science and religion….its A.OK!” but then they go to their church and their pastors, whom they know, say “Evolution = hating Jesus and the bible and goin’ to hell.”

Right its good to try and cozy up to them and state things that are in fact untrue. Science and religion are only compatible if your religion makes NO statements based in reality otherwise you are hosed.

By: Lorax

Lorax — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:54:09 +0000

I stated this before, but I think there may have been a real push to include the banality at the end on science and religion being such good friends by the “framing” movers who want to make sure no religious person is offended by the thought of science.

By: Rob Knop

Rob Knop — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:09:14 +0000

Second, if they are going to discuss creationism and/or religious beliefs, there is no reason to make the overt, rather pandering statement that evolution and religion are compatible. That’s like saying that apples and oranges are compatible.

The thing is — creationists’ brand of religion is not compatible with science. I agree with you it’s an apples/oranges thing, but the creationists do not. And, if you notice what happened in Iowa the other day, creationists do have a substantial representation in this country. As such, it’s worth addressing.

If those who are willing to accept it’s OK for some to have religion but who also accept modern science do not address religion at all, they cede the playing field to the creationists who say “they are trying to take God away from you.” There are enough religious folks out there who would accept evolution if they understood that accepting evolution didn’t mean you must reject your religion. The message needs to be repeated… otherwise, the message of the creationists is what will end up winning over those who do not want to relinquish their religion. And that is a losing prospect for those of us who don’t want to see the USA retreat into the dark ages.

By: Eamon Knight

Eamon Knight — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:06:59 +0000

“Unintended ignorance is excusable. Unwillingness to learn is not,” expressed Director of the Center for Scientific Creation, Dr. Walt Brown. “Preventing students from learning is reprehensible.”

So, when is Walt gonna STFU?