WingNutDaily: I can't wait to be 'Expelled'
jspa...@linuxquestions.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
of the worldwide atheist movement - aren't really opposed to the
notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.
You will hear some of the world's most celebrated evolutionists admit
design is possible - just not by the hand of God.
They will attribute the possibility of design to visitors from other
planets and even to crystals. The two things they cannot tolerate are
consideration of God's role and any of their colleagues deviating from
their own ideas about origins.
It's not so much the architects of evolution are opposed to religion.
It's that they have formed their own religion - absent the God of
Christianity and Judaism.
As Ben Stein explains it: "Big Science in this area of biology has
lost its way. Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the
evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are.
Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only
anti-American, it's anti-science. It's anti-the whole concept of
learning."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57904
J. Spaceman
Richard Clayton
> From the article:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> of the worldwide atheist movement - aren't really opposed to the
> notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.
Funny how cdesign proponentsists like to apply terms like
"doctrinaire" and "zealots" to scientists. Projection, maybe?
Inez
> From the article:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> of the worldwide atheist movement - aren't really opposed to the
> notion of design at all.
Somewhere Isaac Mizrahi is breathing a sigh of relief.
> They just can't accept God as the designer.
>
> You will hear some of the world's most celebrated evolutionists admit
> design is possible - just not by the hand of God.
>
> They will attribute the possibility of design to visitors from other
> planets and even to crystals. The two things they cannot tolerate are
> consideration of God's role and any of their colleagues deviating from
> their own ideas about origins.
>
> It's not so much the architects of evolution are opposed to religion.
> It's that they have formed their own religion - absent the God of
> Christianity and Judaism.
>
> As Ben Stein explains it: "Big Science in this area of biology has
> lost its way. Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the
> evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are.
> Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only
> anti-American, it's anti-science. It's anti-the whole concept of
> learning."
Here would have been an excellent place to put that Godly evidence,
instead of just having a meta-discussion.
geo...@hotmail.com
> From the article:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> of the worldwide atheist movement - aren't really opposed to the
> notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.
Which they are quite entitled to do. They're just not entitled to
claim scientific backing for it.
>
> You will hear some of the world's most celebrated evolutionists admit
> design is possible - just not by the hand of God.
Oddly, you won't hear the more reasonable and common position that
design is possible by God, but lacks any scientific evidence.
>
> They will attribute the possibility of design to visitors from other
> planets and even to crystals. The two things they cannot tolerate are
> consideration of God's role and any of their colleagues deviating from
> their own ideas about origins.
>
> It's not so much the architects of evolution are opposed to religion.
> It's that they have formed their own religion - absent the God of
> Christianity and Judaism.
And Jesus tortured puppies and then ate them.
What, you want evidence for that? I thought we were just allowed to
make up crap about the other side and present it as truth. Just
following your example, Christians.
>
> As Ben Stein explains it: "Big Science in this area of biology has
> lost its way. Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the
> evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are.
> Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only
> anti-American, it's anti-science. It's anti-the whole concept of
> learning."
>
Ben Stein sure didn't quite grasp that concept. He reckons for some
reason, that evolution is equivalent to abiogenesis and cosmology - as
have creationists for the past few decades of being corrected. Who has
problems with learning, now? And when are we going to learn some ID
theory?
Fundies are liars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57904
>
> J. Spaceman
Geoff
LOL...A little obscure, but it makes it all the funnier.
raven1
wrote:
>It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
>zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
>author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
>of the worldwide atheist movement
Is he? I didn't vote for him.
Tiny Bulcher
I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist autonomous collective.
Glenn
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:40:07 -0800 (PST), jspace...@linuxquestions.net
> wrote:
>
> >It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> >zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> >author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> >of the worldwide atheist movement
>
> Is he? I didn't vote for him.
Yet you understand and accept evolution.
raven1
Mark VandeWettering
As insightful as ever Glenn.
Kind of a pity, actually.
Mark
Glenn
Inez
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:40:07 -0800 (PST), jspace...@linuxquestions.net
> wrote:
>
> >It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> >zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> >author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> >of the worldwide atheist movement
>
> Is he? I didn't vote for him.
You aren't supposed to have voted for a "de facto" leader. Not that I
agree that worldwide atheists are particularly motile.
Kermit
> wrote:
>
> >It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> >zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> >author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> >of the worldwide atheist movement
>
> Is he? I didn't vote for him.
Reminds me of Krosp I, from "Girl Genius":
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/info/cast/cast07.php
He was successfully genetically engineered to be the Emperor of All
Cats. Alas, he has no army! As he explains - "Have you ever tried to
tell a cat to do anything?"
Kermit
DougC
> You will hear some of the world's most celebrated evolutionists admit
> design is possible - just not by the hand of God.
A designer by any other name?
> They will attribute the possibility of design to visitors from other
> planets ...
So was there another designer on that other planet? Or the one before
that?
> It's not so much the architects of evolution are opposed to religion.
> It's that they have formed their own religion - absent the God of
> Christianity and Judaism.
So the areligious have a religion?
> As Ben Stein explains it: "Big Science in this area of biology has
> lost its way. Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the
> evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are.
> Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only
> anti-American, it's anti-science. It's anti-the whole concept of
> learning."
I think Ben Stein was saying that injecting religion into the process
compromises the whole idea of following evidence. And here you are
bleating about the absence of God.
Doug Chandler
Robert Weldon
>
> - Show quoted text -
And so, that makes you are a big fish bozo?
Robert Weldon
> > wrote:
>
> >> It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> >> zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard
> >> Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de
> >> facto leader of the worldwide atheist movement
>
> > Is he? I didn't vote for him.
>
> I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist autonomous collective.
26 minutes before the Monty Python reference hits the boards!?!?!?!?
In the sea of Monty Python geeks we have here, the response should
have been measured in nanoseconds, I am seriously disappointed in you
people. I expect you to do much better next time.
Glenn
>
Mark VandeWettering
It's a pity then. At least you would have been doing something.
Mark
Glenn
into the bucket, Mark. Pity the fish.
The Pooflinger
> wrote:
>
> >It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> >zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> >author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> >of the worldwide atheist movement
>
> Is he? I didn't vote for him.
You don't vote for kings.
Caranx latus
Indeed. The Lady of the Lake... (angelic choirs)... her arm clad in the
purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the
water, signifying by Divine Providence that he, Richard Dawkins, was to
carry Excalibur. That is why he is our king.
Glenn
No, it is because Dawkins *is* a leader of the "worldwide atheist
movement", since he belongs to and holds a senior position in an
atheist organization linked to the Atheist Alliance International
group, who provided him with and instituted an award in his name, and
is apparently the most visible public self appointed representative of
an atheist, of atheists and atheism in the world. I doubt "raven1" has
voting priveledges in the AAI, but the fact is that a "de facto"
leader isn't one who is "voted in".
The Pooflinger
Methinks humor eludeth this one...
Caranx latus
It is often thus with creationists.
Glenn
raven1
wrote:
>On Mar 4, 7:14 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
That whooshing sound was the point going over your head.
Tiny Bulcher
Thorry, marthter. I wath watching the football. I promithe to do better
next time *cringes*
(Anyway, we nearly made up for it later, but some humourless pillock
derailed the thread. Has anyone ever seen a creationist make or even get
a joke?)
Tiny Bulcher
Anyway, strange organizations we've never heard of distributing awards
is no basis for a system of leadership. Supreme executive power derives
from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical award ceremony.
Ron O
> From the article:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.
Are the IDiot perps that ran the teach ID scam "anti-design zealots"?
Right now, the same guys that perpetrated the dishonest teach ID
creationist scam are running the bait and switch on any creationist
rube that believed that they had something to teach about intelligent
design. The switch that they are perpetrating doesn't even mention
that ID ever existed, so can these dishonest creationist ID perps be
called anti-design zealots? This boob can't deny that the same guys
that ran the ID scam have dumped it for the swtich scam, so what are
we to conclude? It isn't the science side that has to run in the
switch. Just ask the Florida creationist rubes. They were the latest
victims of the bait and switch scam that the ID creationist perps are
running. Just ask them who ran in the switch scam. While you are at
it you might ask them why they took the dishonest switch scam instead
of booting the liars out and telling them to never come back.
Ron Okimoto
Geoff
Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being
repressed!
Dustan
> From the article:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.
Prove that god designed the world.
> You will hear some of the world's most celebrated evolutionists admit
> design is possible - just not by the hand of God.
>
> They will attribute the possibility of design to visitors from other
> planets and even to crystals.
That's because there is currently *tentative* evidence that such a
thing might have happened.
> The two things they cannot tolerate are
> consideration of God's role and any of their colleagues deviating from
> their own ideas about origins.
There's no evidence to suggest such a god. There's no scientific basis
for an immaterial creator.
> It's not so much the architects of evolution are opposed to religion.
> It's that they have formed their own religion - absent the God of
> Christianity and Judaism.
Don't forget Islam.
> As Ben Stein explains it: "Big Science in this area of biology has
> lost its way. Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the
> evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are.
They did.
> Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only
> anti-American, it's anti-science. It's anti-the whole concept of
> learning."
False, false, false and.... false.
Ian Harvey
"Tiny Bulcher" <alyc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:nbWdnRdLtOz_GFPa...@bt.com...
Ian
jcon
> From the article:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.
>
> design is possible - just not by the hand of God.
>
> They will attribute the possibility of design to visitors from other
> consideration of God's role and any of their colleagues deviating from
> their own ideas about origins.
>
> It's that they have formed their own religion - absent the God of
> Christianity and Judaism.
>
> lost its way. Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the
> evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are.
> anti-American, it's anti-science. It's anti-the whole concept of
> learning."
>
> Read it athttp://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57904
>
> J. Spaceman
Ben Stein hit his high point in "Ferris Beuller's Day Off", and it's
been
downhill since then. He should have quit while he was ahead.
-jc
Jeffrey Turner
Don't just sit there, bake a couple loaves.
--Jeff
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to
deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree
odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government
whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Jeffrey Turner
Where do I learn the secret handshake and get the secret decoder ring?
Glenn
Andre Lieven
more:
Care to point to where he says that he is the " world atheist leader
" ?
Uh huh, just more fundy IDiot lies and insane projections.
Andre
RAM
And make some wine and feed the masses.
RAM
The Pooflinger
I'd prefer a beer if it's not too much trouble. Thanks.
raven1
wrote:
>On Mar 5, 9:15 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
And you never will. Ewige Blumenkraft!
Desertphile
<savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 6:40 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> > From the article:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> > zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> > author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> > of the worldwide atheist movement - aren't really opposed to the
> > notion of design at all.
> Somewhere Isaac Mizrahi is breathing a sigh of relief.
I had no idea there was an atheist movement, let alone a
world-wide atheist movement, let alone it has a leader.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<rich.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:40 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> > From the article:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> > zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> > author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> > of the worldwide atheist movement - aren't really opposed to the
> > notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.
> Funny how cdesign proponentsists like to apply terms like
> "doctrinaire" and "zealots" to scientists. Projection, maybe?
It certainly shows they are engaged in political propagandizing
and not science.
Desertphile
Around 18,000,000 idiots voted for George Bush2.
ash....@gmail.com
cries foul about the substance of research in a particular scientific
field is somehow a freedom-fighter for truth, a whistleblower on the
evil plans hatched by the dangerous scientists - who are surely
godless materialists suppressing any discourse on ideas outside of
their own "narrow" view of the world? When did it become "obvious"
that science is suppressing truth, trying to pull the wool over
everyone's eyes, simply because yet another religiously motivated
individual with sufficient celebrity, media influence, and/or money
says so? When did it begin making sense to the public to get their
scientific information from college-flunkies-turned-AM radio show
hosts (Limbaugh), creationist comedian-turned-game-show-hosts (Stein),
lawyer-turned-anti-semite-hate-speech-political-authors (Coulter), gun-
toting "creation science" educators-turned tax-thief convicts
(Hovind), televangelist or homophobic self-admitted Christian psychics
(Pat Robertson)? Surely none of these stalwart individuals with
"spotless" records in scientific research could possibly have any
agenda other than the education of the public about what science is
and is not. Hmmm...
On Mar 4, 6:40 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> From the article:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design
> zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins,
> author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader
> of the worldwide atheist movement - aren't really opposed to the
> notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.
>
9fingers
> On Mar 4, 12:26 pm, "Tiny Bulcher" <alycid...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Thus cwaeth raven1 :
>
> > >> zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard
> > >> Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de
> > >> facto leader of the worldwide atheist movement
>
>
>
> 26 minutes before the Monty Python reference hits the boards!?!?!?!?
> In the sea of Monty Python geeks we have here, the response should
> have been measured in nanoseconds, I am seriously disappointed in you
> people. I expect you to do much better next time.
Help! I'm being repressed! It's the violence inherent in the system...
John Wilkins
Who made you king?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."