Comments on: The problem with appeasement of creationists is … https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/ Sun, 12 Sep 2010 18:56:49 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 By: Marion Delgado https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522920 Sun, 12 Sep 2010 18:56:49 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522920 My take is identical to JJ Ramsey’s. Also, their magazine is truly great.

]]> By: bo moore https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522919 Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:05:32 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522919 Did anyone witness the supreme and terrifying arrogance of DEpak Chopra on Larry King last night?? The creationists are downright sane compared to this guy!

]]> By: Paul Murray https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522918 Sat, 11 Sep 2010 03:21:48 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522918

The ugly little secret that scientists don’t want to admit to is that science and supernatural belief CANNOT BE RECONCILED:

yeah, PZ, Orac, Hawkings, Dawkin, not scientists, nope.

A bit of a leap that. People are a trifle more complex than all scientist all the time. If that’s what you meant.

]]> By: Charles https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522917 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:10:35 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522917 Reply to 3:
| A good scientific explanation for the technological
| span between humans and other species? All that
| technological mastery comes from building an
| understanding of the universe, through a process called
| science. The scientific explanation for our technology is
| science. …

Sorry, science is a late-comer. By the time science showed up people were already the extremely dominant species. I think that the two answers are technology and language. (It’s hard to say just when language showed up it *might* have been first, but I don’t think that’s the way to bet.)

FWIW, the spear and the club were enough to make humans (including Neanderthals) the dominant species. Bow and arrow (or spear-chucker, depending on the culture) pretty much finished the job. I’m leaving out lots of refinements, like flint knapping, baskets, etc. I’m not sure they were necessary for this limited goal. I also left out fire, which was very important, but I’m not sure in which ways, beyond expanding the ecological niche the people could live in. But note these were all technological, not science. Science didn’t show up until Francis Bacon. Even the Romans didn’t have it. (The Greeks came quite close, and may even have had it in a restricted form. Hard to tell with so many records lost.)

]]> By: Stephanie Z https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522916 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:33:42 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522916 Actually, as part of the “don’t-be-a-dick crowd,” my problem with people being a dick is that people frequently are dicks instead of doing the work.

]]> By: theshortearedowl https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522915 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:25:14 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522915 Yup. The thing about the don’t-be-a-dick crowd is that they’re never concerned for their own sensitivities – it’s always for some other hypothetical person who somehow would have been convinced by the argument if they hadn’t been so rude.

I find it particularly amusing (and sad) when they use it in reference to Richard Dawkins, who is one of the most politely spoken persons you can come across.

]]> By: itzac https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522914 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:56:11 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522914 Change out evolution in Genie’s statement for bears. I want bears to eat Casey Luskin. RROOOAAARR!!!

]]> By: J. J. Ramsey https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522913 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:38:31 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522913 Stacy: “Is there some reason we should care about what the Discotute thinks?”

More to the point, the NCSE isn’t trying to woo the Discotute people. It has never advocated that there are no religious views that conflict with science, only that accepting evolution need not require embracing atheism. If believers refuse to accommodate their beliefs to accommodate the science, then they can expect the NCSE to be very unaccommodating to them. That’s how the NCSE’s always been.

]]> By: Winston https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522912 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:13:13 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522912 Orac?

]]> By: Rob https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522911 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:43:42 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/10/the-problem-with-appeasement-o-1/#comment-522911

The ugly little secret that scientists don’t want to admit to is that science and supernatural belief CANNOT BE RECONCILED:

yeah, PZ, Orac, Hawkings, Dawkin, not scientists, nope.

]]>