![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Sxeptomaniac |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 332 Joined: From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 3,542 ![]() |
I had really hoped they'd keep themselves under control after FeloniousMonk's desysopping a while back, but they appear to be back at it again.
Cla68 seems to have stirred them up by trying to add a "Scientific theories" category to the Intelligent Design article. Don't think it was a really good idea, but it doesn't justify the reaction. Now Hrafn has decided to tag various articles as being Creationism stubs, including James Tour, a guy who has specifically said that he's not an intelligent design supporter. He signed a petition, so therefore he's a creationist, even if he says otherwise, right? Never mind that he's done nothing else related to creationism, and all indicators are that he never will. Now Guettarda's gaming to try to keep the tag in (since when is the burden of evidence on the one removing material from a BLP?). I really did not want to get involved with these people again, but I'm not letting them go back to messing with BLPs like they did in the past. This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac: |
![]() ![]() |
Kelly Martin |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 ![]() |
The ID/anti-ID fight is one between committed ideologues. Both parties are equally guilty; both sides want their religious beliefs (theistic Christianity on one side, and strict atheism on the other) imposed on others by force. I have no more love for strict atheists than I do for any other sort of fundamentalist evangelical. The thing is, neither side is going to compromise, not even to the point of allowing a fair presentation of the claims made by intelligent design or the very legitimate arguments as to why they fail to comprise a scientific theory (which is a different beast than a "theory about science", which is one of the equivocations that ID proponents are fond of using).
The sad thing is that the argument for intelligent design is so intellectually and rationally bankrupt that there is no need to get all mean and nasty about it; it is certainly enough to dispassionately set forth the case against and let people make up their own minds. Everything I've seen is that the only people who will believe this stuff are those who are already predisposed, by religious belief, to accept it uncritically. The problem is that "rationalists" (as they sometimes call themselves) tend to be unable to suppress the urge to be snarky about their own belief in their superiority over all those "stupid people" who have not seen the light of reason. And since they have both David Gerard and Jimmy Wales on their side (more or less), they have no reason to restrain themselves on Wikipedia. |
Doc glasgow |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,138 Joined: From: at home Member No.: 90 ![]() |
The ID/anti-ID fight is one between committed ideologues. Looks to me like a lot of it is a fight between people who believe in NPOV on one hand and people who don't understand the concept on the other. Either of groups may or may not have religious convictions or be atheists, but that's largely irrelevant. Even a fair-minded atheist hasn't got a look in. |
Milton Roe |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 10,209 Joined: Member No.: 5,156 ![]() |
The ID/anti-ID fight is one between committed ideologues. Looks to me like a lot of it is a fight between people who believe in NPOV on one hand and people who don't understand the concept on the other. Either of groups may or may not have religious convictions or be atheists, but that's largely irrelevant. Even a fair-minded atheist hasn't got a look in. How can you describe ID when it's not close to being a single POV? Those guys know they want a God-of-the-gaps, but they can't decide which gaps need a god. Once upon a time, god was the Prime Mover, and was necessary to make the planets go around the Sun. Now, it's admitted that they can do that without Him. Then, we needed God to form babies in the womb. Now that's starting to look pretty mechanical. Then anti-evolution proponents gave up on microevolution and admitted that you didn't need God to make teacup pomeranians or Great Danes from wolves, or even different subspecies on different islands. Now that can be automatic. Less and less for God to do.... So, what jobs are left? Do we need god to make humans from other types of apes? How about splitting other apes from each other? Or just to make primates from other mammals? Or make mammals from reptiles? The reason Father Georges Lemaître won on the Big Bang question, is that he put his theoretical cards on the table and "placed his bet" on a prediction. The ID folks, by contrast, are "not even wrong." They are like nailing jello to a table. When Hubble found the universe expanding, Einstein (father of modern physical cosmology) said "I have made the biggest blunder of my life." (he had inserted a fudge factor into an equation just to make the universe static, because he thought it should be). Einstein saw that had he trusted his own math, he'd had the chance to make one more astounding prediction, like Dirac and the positron. But in both cases, the inventors didn't trust their own mathematical inventions. |
taiwopanfob |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Member No.: 214 ![]() |
So, what jobs are left? Do we need god to make humans from other types of apes? How about splitting other apes from each other? Or just to make primates from other mammals? Or make mammals from reptiles? God is the sysadmin for the Great Big Computer In The Sky. Science is us trying to steal the source code from that motherfucker, fix the bugs, and get our sorry posteriors off this planet. Can anyone really have lived until they have B.A.S.E. jumped the Verona Rupes on Miranda? QUOTE But in both cases, the inventors didn't trust their own mathematical inventions. Well, in some ways he was a number of decades ahead of the game: the cosmological constant has since re-appeared in modern cosmologies as one of several free parameters. This post has been edited by taiwopanfob: |
Milton Roe |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 10,209 Joined: Member No.: 5,156 ![]() |
So, what jobs are left? Do we need god to make humans from other types of apes? How about splitting other apes from each other? Or just to make primates from other mammals? Or make mammals from reptiles? God is the sysadmin for the Great Big Computer In The Sky. Science is us trying to steal the source code from that motherfucker, fix the bugs, and get our sorry posteriors off this planet. Can anyone really have lived until they have B.A.S.E. jumped the Verona Rupes on Miranda? B.A.S.E. jumping in environments with no atmospheres? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Sounds exciting... for a short time. Then SPLAT. Maybe you're rather bungee jump that one. QUOTE But in both cases, the inventors didn't trust their own mathematical inventions. Well, in some ways he was a number of decades ahead of the game: the cosmological constant has since re-appeared in modern cosmologies as one of several free parameters. Bleh, it doesn't count unless you have data to explain. He should have noted that it was a constant of integration, set it to zero, noted that that made the universe expand, predicted THAT, and then said it could be resurrected again, in case the rate of expansion was not constant.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |