Slashdot Mirror
Texas Bill Outlaws Discrimination Against Creationists In Academia
ndogg writes "There is a Texas bill, HB 2454, proposed by Republican State Rep. Bill Zedler, that will outlaw discrimination against creationists in colleges and universities. More specifically, it says, 'An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.'"
We can still laught a them loudly right ?
If you outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve.
I believe this bill also needs to be modified to allow one to teach that the green cheese fairy living in the pumpkin house by the spaghetti farm on the dark side of the moon helped manufacture earth from the primordial cheese whiz with the help of the space goblins.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Funny how the same party that had Rand Paul insisting that desegregating lunch counters was "unconstitutional" is now trying to create affirmative action for fundamentalist retards. I guess it's only OK to protect the rights of white Christians, not everybody else...
They can submit their papers for peer review, just like everyone else. Or does "Scientific Scrutiny" count as "Discrimination" these days?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So your biology department is not allowed to bias decisions when hiring against potential faculty members who don't believe in the basic tenets of biology?
Final year thesis on the origin of man - "God did it."
...other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms
Finally! Now I can submit all those Pastafarianism papers for publication.
Can we encourage Texas to consider secession?
Sure they can, they just can't call say why. "Applicant smelled like bad tuna. Do not hire."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If they are, say, art professors, or theology professors. But if they are scientists, then this is stupid. Believing in creationism is a sure sign of a bad scientist. You can't be a good scientist and believe in creationism any more than you can be a good scientist and deny the existence of gravity or atoms.
On the bright side, if they extend this to outlaw discrimination against believing any stupid thing then it'll make getting a job really easy. If an interviewer asks you about something you don't know, just claim you don't believe in it. If they don't hire you, sue them. Profit!
Almost all my professors believed in God. They thought the Initial Singularity, big bang, expansion, evolution of stars, and all of it was part of his design.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Texas doesn't have a lock on stupid legislators. Look what we've got over here in North Carolina: Legislator says the state needs its own currency http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/17/1059132/legislator-says-the-state-needs.html
I say "preach it!". It being intelligent design.
Not the "God made the world in 6 days, rested on the 7th and it is all described in the Bible".
I just want to see just how fucking angry and upset these Christian retards become, if there was a course called "Creationism 101" which taught that the Spaghetti Monster created the world yesterday, that Allah (God, the Islamic version) created the world in six days as per the Koran, that Yahweh created the world in six days as per the Torah, that Brahma and Vishnu created the world, and then left the Christian God out of the curriculum.
I mean - the Christian God is already covered by Yahweh and Allah, so why waste time on that.
And the Creationists should be happy, because their "Anti Evolution" point is taught, which is what they want. They keep claiming they just want people to know that evolution isn't the only option.
No, it's not. You wouldn't hire a math teacher who doesn't believe in calculus, would you?
link to the original article instead of the... um, "slightly" biased blog
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
They can publish anything they write in the Discovery Institute's journals. If necessary, the DiscoTute will create new journals for the purpose (same as the homeopathy whackjobs do, for example.) Likewise, they'll get plenty of grant money from BillyBob's Revelation Society.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
This should be obvious. Someone should not be discriminated against because they disagree on any subject--as long as their research and performance don't suffer.
There are a ton of loony professors around in all subjects and no one freaks out about that.
I guess all the people of slashdot would rather stifle any differing opinion--that's rather sad.
See, youre a geologist, and you are trying to research paleontologic era. but, some moron comes up and says that earth was created 6000 years ago, and you have to work together with that moron to do your research.
Read radical news here
To quote George Carlin: Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!
Sounds like a bi-polar god to me.
Since you can't possibly prove or disprove it... open end.
Wrong.
Creationism is not falsifiable. Therefore, it cannot be considered a scientific theory. And *that's* the end of it.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
That word does not mean what you think it means. "Theory" in a scientific context does not mean the same thing as "theory" in the vernacular.
Actually creationism need not be disproven before it is dismissed because it is not even falsifiable. Therefore science doesn't have the tools to deal with it. Philosophy does.
It is possible that creationism is true; we just don't have any way to test its claims using the scientific method. Evolution is scientific fact. Existence of a creator is outside the purview of science.
conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.'"
That's a big loss.
So politicians now define what an "alternate theory" is? Sorry, but ID is not a "theory". It's hogwash, bullshit, dumbfuck, nonsense, insanity or any of a selection of similar terms. It is not even a theory, and definitely not a scientific theory.
To cut a long discussion short, it lacks an important part: Falsifiability.
If creationists want to have their delusions discussed by honest people, they have to make one concession first, and that is the willingness to be convinced that it's all hogwash, bullshit, nonsense, you get it. They need to say "my theory proposes X and Y, and it forbids Z. If Z can be shown to be true, my theory is a piece of crap and I'll stop plastering it everywhere and brainwishing my kids into believing it."
Science is full of faults and bad theories - but it has an uncanny ability to rid itself of them. Creationism (in both its pure form and it's ID camouflage) has been debunked hundreds of times, practically every time a real scientists so much as takes a good look. And yet it's still thrown around, largely unchanged. That is not science, that is fanatism.
And by regulating science not on the ground of proper scientific conduct, but on grounds of ideology, those politicians have just delivered an excellent proof that they are not to be trusted with truth, facts, knowledge or in fact anything, least of all running the place.
When will we have our Tharir place to rid ourselves of this caste of no-gooders who have turned everything that was once good about our democracy against us and are driven by nothing but greed and power?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Where politicians started dictating what is and isn't legit science and ultimately killing scientists that didn't agree?
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
This story makes me think of David Horowitz and his skewed take on academic freedom. I encourage everyone to read or listen to him debate prof. Peter Steinberger of Reed College in which Steinberger explains precisely why approaches like this go directly against the principles of academic freedom: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2210/ReedCollegeSteinbergerDebate082806.htm
Audio version here: http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/winter06/columns/noc/steinberger.html
it is discrimination against impolite people. You should says "the applicant seemed to not understand the basic principles of logic, do not hire" to cover your ass completely
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Hmm, so I can have my "theory" that the internet is a series of tubes driven by hamsters? Or that you're actually a frog from space? Since you can't disprove a theory..... oh wait. You can disprove theories, can't you? You just can't logically prove them. Hmm.
Actually, gravity is *not* a theory. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a law. The difference is that a law is typically a direct relationship supported by empirical evidence. If you drop something, it falls. Newton worked out all the numbers. Same thing for Charles' law about gases and so on. What those *laws* don't do is say *why* or *how* the law works. A theory of gravitation includes a mechanism.
Furthermore, while it's not technically possible to *prove* any theory (by default, theories deal with unobservable entities that we can only understand by looking at their effects on the macroscopic world), it is certainly possible to disprove a theory. I have a theory that all matter is made up of continuous material, I shoot electron beams at a thin gold foil and observe (like Rutherford) a scattering that is inconsistent with that theory, and BLAM. Dead theory. Pardon my violent language, it's just that radical relativism makes me somewhat angry.
What I'm getting at is that you have an incorrect (and provably so) conceptualization of what the word "theory" means. Anyone who uses the phrase "still a theory" or "just a theory" has the same incorrect conceptualization of theory. The scientific community does itself a disservice by not educating people about how they use language better, but then again I've observed time and again that when the broader scientific community attempts to educate people, they tend to do things like cover their ears and say "lalala".
In closing, the "theory" of evolution is actually more of a set of interconnected theories that successfully aligns several hypothesized mechanisms with the empirically observed differentiation of species, geological age of the earth, and direct observations on the microscopic timescale of genetic drift. The "theory" of creation has no empirical support, and when confronted with actual disconfirmatory evidence its supporters either cover their ears and say "lalala" or they wave their hands and say "just a theory". BLAM. Dead theory.
There's nothing wrong with believing in a creation myth. I personally am a pastafarian (my heaven is waaaay better). But don't conflate irrational clinging to a belief with "proof" that that belief fits scientific models. And don't conflate the status of evolution as "theory" with "uncertainty". All the theory tag attaches is the notion that the entity it describes includes mechanistic and/or causal reasoning and appeals to logical reasoning in addition to empirical observations.
tl;dr: You're wrong, but you have a very common misconception about the scientific method. Plenty of people think that because you can never prove something true in all ways that any claim will do (since you can't prove that you're right, you can't prove that I'm wrong). This is known as "radical relativism", and is a dead end in reasoning.
[circa 1861]
Texas: We are free to leave whenever we want. South Carolina did.
Congress: No you aren't and neither are they.
Texas: Who's going to stop us?
Congress: We are.
Texas: You and what Army?
President: Mine.
OK, it didn't quite play out like that but if it happened today, it might.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It is discrimination against women! You should give them a drug test and then fake the results.
which is totally what she said
Sharia 2.0 in the American way.
Actually, evolution is not a theory.. It is just still called "theory of evolution" to appease all of the religitards
It is a Theory. The important thing is that a scientific theory, which is a combination of confirmed facts with reasoned and supported generalizations, is completely different from what a layperson thinks of when he hears the word "theory."
Gravity is "just a theory"; it's still stupid to believe that you can jump off a forty-foot ledge and fly by flapping your wings.
Back into the dark ages with you, Americans! you've never been very bright anyway...
FTFY
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
I'm conflicted on this...
On the one hand, if there was no news about this bill, then it *might* just die off. Special interest groups often propose outlandish bills to generate publicity. Suddenly their cause gets millions more people aware. They very well might be a fringe group, but .05% of 300M people is still a large group.
On the other hand, it's very easy for special interest groups to push bills through because of the lack of scrutiny. No one else may care, so rather than fighting a seemingly innocuous addendum, politicians just OK it.
It be interesting if thousands of people suddenly wrote their Congress folk and representatives suggesting that similar provisions in the law be afforded to followers of the FSM. After all, if the existing anti-discrimination law is not sufficient and creationists are being harassed, then certainly the followers of the FSM should also get protection.
Creationism is, in fact, falsifiable. God could show up and explain he didn't do it.
Generally, by 'falsifiable', science means 'disprovable', which creationism is not, and hence not science. There is no testable theory to demonstrate that.
But, strictly speaking, it could be falsified, because it states an entity did something, and for that to be false, all we would need is for that entity to say so.
We are talking about 'history', not 'science' at that point, and God is a primary source, in fact, the only source. If he shows up and say 'No, it wasn't me', we should pretty much consider our historic theory wrong. Likewise, if he says 'It was me', we should accept it.
It's the same way that saying 'The house seems dirty. I think Bill tracked some mud into the house yesterday' is not a scientific theory, but is a theory of history and is a falsifiable if Bill wakes up and says he didn't go outside yesterday.
Of course, God or Bill could be lying, which also needs to be taken into account.
And all these seems moot as no one can seem to get God to get down here and tell us what happened.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Maybe Texas should just secede and be the place where all the nut jobs live.
That'd be kinda hard to move all the Californians there, wouldn't it?
it is discrimination against impolite people. You should says "the applicant seemed to not understand the basic principles of logic, do not hire" to cover your ass completely
To really cover your I-did-not-discriminate-bases you should say, "the applicant failed a getting hired check done with a fair 20 sided die, do not hire".
It would simplify a lot of proofs though.
What is pi to 37 trillion decimal places? 3, its in the bible.
P = NP? Yes, God told me so.
Uh, no, I don't like it, because you got it ass-backwards. A theory must be falsifiable before it can be even admitted. If you make a theory that cannot be disproven, that's not bad science, that's not science at all. Not even wrong.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
You don't seem to know many creationists then.
I used to be a Christian/creationist (it's how I was brought up), but am no longer.
However, I know a few people that are highly intelligent as well as religious. The human brain is very good at compartmentalising various things, and therefore holding completely different sets of standards for different parts of life. Religious people can still make very good mathematicians and scientists.
For example. the head of the Computer Science dept at my old University was very into biology/genetics and AI despite being a member of the Free Church, which is pretty "fanatical" as denominations go, and holds a creationist viewpoint. Likewise an old head of the Geography dept at the same Uni was a devout Christian. I find biology and geography to be strange topics for creationists to be teaching at such a high level, but some people obviously can still do scientific jobs to a very high standard, despite having religious beliefs that are essentially untenable from a scientific point of view. The human brain is very good at compartmentalising.
PS Why can't you use wordwrap to let your text flow smoothly on any screen, rather than manually creating jarring gaps in your writing?
which is totally what she said
To be sure, discrimination is the whole point of academia, that is discrimination on basis of academic merit. People who cannot show academic rigour are vigorously discriminated against (e.g. they will not get tenure, they will not get their articles published in the mainstream journals, and they will not get recognition). Only in that way are shoddy work and pseudo-science kept at bay. Most of the time.
And yes, that's all very "elitist" because Joe Sixpack simply no more capable of judging is someone is or is not academically capable than he is of analysing a mathematical proof, a statistical test, a laboratory result, or judging if a medical diagnosis is right. If Joe Sixpack were so clued-up he'd be hired as a researcher or a professional. Only he isn't, for excellent reasons.
As Creationism lacks all and any academic merit, it is no more than reasonable to be able to refuse people who subscribe to it from joining the Biology faculty.
Despite its name, "Evolution Theory" is not a mere "theory". On the contrary. There is both an enormous existing body of solid and well-documented evidence for Evolution Theory, and it is corroborated on a continuous basis by just about every on-going field research (from bacteria to beetles to birds to elephants and all kind of plant life). This makes it a *well-tested* and *well-verified* theory, which is why it is at the basis of contemporary Biology.
It wouldn't be a problem is a creationist joined a liberal arts faculty, the maths faculty, or the civil engineering department. Those academic fields are sufficiently fare removed from creationism that they will not be impacted.
But for those who would join the Biology faculty the standard is somewhat higher: they must first show that they know in detail that they know what they are talking about (as in passing exams). After that, if they wish to dispute the foundations of the subject area they wish to don a mantle of authority on, they must first *disprove* with specificity what they dispute, in a scientifically acceptable way. For example in the course of their PhD research.
Then and only then can they be admitted (and they usually will be).
All this is needed to ensure that no *religious* arguments creep into the debate, because religion has no overlap with science and should not be confused with it.
Most of the world gets this, only the US (well certain groups within the US) is in the unique position that it starts blurring the line again centuries after the separation between Church and State and the decoupling of Theology from the Sciences during the Renaissance. It is interesting to note that in this the US finds itself in the company of Islamic Extremists, who too wish to assert the authority of their particular interpretation of word of their particular deity as paramount over reason, dispute, or evidence.
There are an exceedingly tiny number of scientists, yes. But then again, there are a small number of historians who don't believe in the Holocaust, either. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists, and in particular scientists who work in fields related to evolutionary studies, who accept evolution.
Beyond that, this bill is crap. Even if it were passed, it couldn't survive a constitutional challenge. Yet more time-wasting from the anti-intellectuals in Texas, land of the tragically religious.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Would you hire a PhD historian who was a Holocaust denier to teach in your department?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes, his old man, the guy who thought that Abe Lincoln shouldn't have tried to end slavery.
We're well aware that the Pauls are nothing more than vile bigots dressing things up in crap Libertarian phraseology.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Forrest Mims is a creationist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Mims
I read his engineering notebooks and built circuits out of them. I will be forever grateful to him for that. It was the most fun I ever had in science, and I learned a lot of useful stuff.
It blew me away when I found out that a guy that smart and cool was a creationist. But there are a lot of engineers who believe in Bible-belt creationism.
If Mims were proposed to teach an engineering course, there's no doubt that he's qualified. If he were to teach a biology course, maybe not. If he were to teach a general science course, I don't know.
But that's a decision for the department to make, not the Texas legislature.
This doesn't prevent us from laughing at creationists.
That issue was settled back in 1865 with a little event called the Civil War. The Civil War was NOT about slavery, as many think. Slavery was one of the triggers, but the war was not fought over it in any way. The war was over the question of if union membership was permanent. The Confederate States wanted to leave and be their own nation since they were unhappy with what the federal government had been doing, slavery laws among them. The US decided that no that wasn't ok, it was rebellion and a war was fought. The Union won, and the issue was settled: Union membership is permanent.
The issue is done and settled, like it or not.
Rand Paul didn't say segregation was good, he did not describe his thought very well though. The argument is that the federal level government should stick to the constitution and let the states handle local matters.
So Paul thinks the 14th Amendment isn't part of the Constitution? Most people ignore the FACT that the democrat party supported segregation and the republicans opposed it.
The Democrats lost the South, which was overwhelmingly Democrat, precisely because they opposed segregation, and the Republicans gained it by supporting segregation.
Science is not religion. Science is the reason you arn't dying of smallpox, why you can buy preserved and refrigerated food without having to take a spear and catch it, and why have an internet to complain on.
Theories can be tested and proven. There is nothing about creationism that is testable. It all relies on "belief" which is not a scientific concept. It has no place being discussed anywhere near real academia.
today is spelling optional day.
You do realize that Reddit is back up today? Right?
"A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!"
So would you not hire Einstein because he said, "God does not play dice with the universe"
That's called quote mining, and is a quick sign that the rest of your post is pointless stupidity. Einstein had a tendency to use poetic statements to attempt to illustrate principles he was trying to communicate.
He also said:
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
That sounds pretty much like he falls into the category of "not a creationist", no matter how much you quote-mine and misrepresent things. The same applies to the rest, so yes, you are a dumbass, but it's mostly because you use either poorly researched or deliberately misleading statements to attempt to prop up a failed point.
Having a wide array of scientific opinions is healthy. Creationism/ID is not science. As Carl Sagan observed, "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains leak out."
Or do you think advocates of phlogiston should be given equal time, or any time, at physics conferences?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Quit repeating this stupid, sarcastic non-argument! God =/= young-earth creationism. Your poor logic is insidious.
re-read hawking. his current writings imply (and even say) he does not buy the concept of god.
einstein also was misquoted or misunderstood. he also did not really believe in anything close to the religious view of god and none of the revered scientists ever believed *in any certainty* in a god. at best, they all *wished* for one, as most humans *wish* for nice things. none are on record saying they had any confidence at all - just wishes. go read what they wrote and think about it in that context; and also realize that you are still writing for the reader and rarely did people, in the past, have the courage to out and out admit they doubted the existence of god. in a political world where people judge you, even scientists have to 'fake it' a little just to appease the people funding and supporting them.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I read a story about a (probably fake) former boss who, upon receiving a stack of applications for a job position, immediately threw half of them in the trash saying, "I don't want to hire anyone who is unlucky."
So would you not hire Einstein because he said, "God does not play dice with the universe"
Which actually is a quote with zero theological content. That isn't Einstein saying "Obviously QM is wrong, because the Bible doesn't say it is right", its Einstein saying, basically, "QM is flawed because nature is deterministic; QM isn't, therefore QM is incomplete". The former interrelation would rightfully disqualify him as a scientist, the latter is part of the normal discussion that makes science tick (see the argument related to the quote between Bohr and Einstein... heady stuff... and not theological in slightest). Einstein was probably an atheist.
This argument isn't about rhetorical flair.
Often the term "God" is used in a naturalistic way. Just like atheists can use the word "soul" in such a way that is devoid of Christian meaning.
And this isn't about just barring people with religion. No one would really argue that, since their are qualified scientists who hold some flavor of religious faith. Its about being "anti-science", or not being actually skilled in the field you are appying for. How can I be a biologist when I don't actually have a scientific position on it, and, unscientifically, reject evidence based on a very old book that has nothing to do with biology for evidence, or facts, or anything else related to the field? I want to be a professor of Computer Science, but I think that computers are actually run by little gremlins with abacuses, and no amount of logic, evidence, or theory will ever convince me otherwise. Should I be hired? Probably not.
Are you even remotely qualified to argue their assumptions, much less deem them unqualified to teach in their respective fields?
Argument by authority. If the statement isn't based on science, it doesn't matter how big a scientist the speaker is. If Einstein stated that his computer is run by little gremlins, then yes, I could easily dispute it. If any of these people you cite had scientific, evidence based, proof of the existence of a god, then we'd be having a much more interesting discussion. But being that there is no such thing as a bona-fide "God Expert", then, yes, I can debate with them on the subject, and completely disagree with them with no fear of being any more wrong than disagreeing with a crazy person at a bus stop. Ultimately being a famous, accomplished, scientist doesn't make you right on every issue, or make your ideas unassailable. In the aforementioned Einstein quote, he was proven rather soundly wrong by Neils Bohr, for instance. If there is a God, he does play dice.
Now if a scientist suddenly decided all of QM was wrong because "God can't play dice", then he wouldn't be qualified for the field, now would he?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
believe in evolution. A fundamentalist of some kind, as I recall from my grad school days.
He did excellent work, published very many papers in peer-reviewed journals, had an international reputation, his students populate medical school depts of anatomy and neuroscience all over the world.
His papers reported the differences between various species. The species were important in the evolutionary tree of primates, but he didn't have to interpret the results in those terms, just report the data.
So, not every biologist needs to believe in evolution.
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Look, I don't think anyone should be discriminated against based on what they believe. If you believe in Jesus, or Allah, or Krishna, or Xenu, or aliens hiding behind a comet, that's fine, that's just a basic freedom in our country, to believe whatever you want. But how can you research these things outside of the context of history, anthropology, sociology, or psychology? I.e. not as human phenomenon, but physical phenomenon?
I mean, I believe in God and Jesus, but can you imagine if I submitted a paper that was like: "MOSFET in sub-threshold modes modulated by resonance with the Holy Spirit". That paper would, necessarily, be a steaming pile of shit and as unscientific as is possible, and should be rejected. And if I insisted on pursuing that as a line of "research", then damn right I should be disqualified from a research position! That's not discriminating against my religion and beliefs, that's discriminating against my utter suckage at science!
So yeah, it should be (and is) illegal discrimination to reject someone from a job because they say they are a Christian (or Hindu etc), but if they answer "Man was created spontaneously by God, and Woman was crafted from one of his ribs" in a biology exam they should get that question wrong, and if they want to "research" Creationism at a university, the university would be correct to not grant them the chance!
The enemies of Democracy are
Nobody would refuse to hire Einstein as a scientist for saying "God does not play dice with the universe", because despite what religious nutcases try to accomplish by trotting that quote out from Einstein is false. They try to use it as a "see, even Einstein believed in God!", which is untrue. In fact, most of Einstein's comments on God and Religion were that he could take neither seriously and that they are figment's of man's imagination. When he referred to "god" in quotes such as you used, he was doing so as a relatable substitute for "the cosmos" or "the universe".
Anyway, saying that one can not disprove a creator is one thing. Making a positive assertion that there is a creator and it is an explanation to things is the opposite of scientific and would no more suit a true scientist than being a criminal suits a cop. You either require evidence and understanding to reach conclusions on things or you irrationally accept explanations which undermine the very profession you belong to (or your profession undermines the very belief system you claim to adhere to -- one or the other).
Of course, those same people demanding an "open mind" wouldn't dare accept the same unfounded "explanations" of any other religion modern or pre-dating us (Wiccans, Pagans, Greek and Roman mythologies, indian or asian or norse or african mythologies and so on).
The primary difference between a religious person and a scientist -- and why there can be no honest mixing of the two -- is that one seeks to know things and admits when things are unknown. The other picks and chooses what known things to accept and makes things up for the rest. Making shit up, while not unheard of in the field of science (such as the guy who falsified studies to generate the fear against vaccinations), is not an accepted scientific principal.
So leave your god explanations for the theology majors. Leave the scientific for the science majors.
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
-- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)
And a quote more appropriate for this story:
The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.
-- Albert Einstein, letter to Sigmund Freud (30 July 1932)
The majority of academia don't believe in any gods whatsoever (poly, mono or whatonot).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
That sounds pretty much like he falls into the category of "not a creationist", no matter how much you quote-mine and misrepresent things. The same applies to the rest, so yes, you are a dumbass, but it's mostly because you use either poorly researched or deliberately misleading statements to attempt to prop up a failed point.
Actually, saying God, a god, or even my god created the laws of the universe is the very definition of a creationist.
You should learn the definitions of terms before you run around calling people "dumbass". I know I said it was OK and all, but I really didn't mean for someone to do so when they can't even get the terms right.
Strange you would accuse me of quote mining and then counter one of my several arguments based on a quote. Either way, Einstein did not believe in the God of Moses or any other "personal god". OK. Creationism is non-denominational. While many use the term "creationist" to mean "evolution denier", that's not really what the term means and certainly not how I was using it. So when Einstein speaks of a god that created the laws of the universe or a creator of the universe, he is speaking of a creator, meaning creationism.
Now I don't want to argue about Einstein's theological beliefs. That's not really important. My point was that if you were looking to hire Einstein, and during your research you saw the quote above, would that prevent you from hiring him? It doesn't matter what he said beyond that as the quote stands. If Behe said that he didn't believe in a "personal god", would that qualify him to teach biology?
Oh, and by saying that you won't read the rest of my quotes is another way of saying, "I can't argue those, so I'll concentrate on the one I think I know something about."
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The thing about theories is that it's usually pointless to say you either agree or disagree with them. Theories simply are. That doesn't mean they're accurate but whenever you state your disagreement with a theory, you're kind of expected to mention why you think you've spotted a problem with it.
Imagine you're talking with someone and the topic of gravity comes up, and they suddenly blurt out, "I disagree with Einstein's theory of gravity." The next thing that person says, is either going to be amazingly profound, or just as amazingly inane and utterly unrelated to the strengths or weaknesses of gravity theory. But before that person says anything, just what is your attitude going to be at that moment? How often does it happen, and when it does, how often is the speaker serious?
Well, the weird thing about gravity, is that when someone disagrees with the theory, they've usually actually given it a lot of thought. So far, in the last century, all the people who did that were either wrong or took their secret to their deathbed, but at least when "I disagree with the theory of gravity" it uttered, the next sentence really is often at least related to the topic of gravity. How often? I dunno, but let's call it x(g). Gravity isn't challenged very often. How often? Oh, let's just call that y(g). What I'm getting at is that the chances of having a good, as opposed to tedious-and-irrelevant, "I don't believe in gravity" discussion is x(g)/y(g).
Now compare that to evolution. For some reason, whenever someone says they disagree with evolutionary theory, their next sentence is always inane, and almost never related to the theory of evolution. Instead, we get things like
That's x(e). And for some reason, in spite of evolution being an older, much-more-tested, and down-to-earth and intuitive theory than relativity, people attack it fairly often. That's y(e). The chances of an evolution-denier improving your life, as opposed to making it more tedious, is x(e)/y(e). x(e) is less than x(g), and y(e) is greater than y(g). So x(e)/y(e) is far less than x(g)/y(g).
So now let's go back to whatever it is that you're thinking when someone says "I disagree with Einstein's theory of gravity." Let's face it: you know the next thing you hear isn't really going to be for real. Sure, it might be, but someone is about to say something very tired and lame. Yet for all your pessimism, it is a genuinely interesting and exciting possibility, compared to the diarrhea that you're pretty much guaranteed to hear after someone blurts out, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution." The next thing that person says, is never serious or interesting, it never points out any evidence that evolution might be incorrect, it never points out evidence that might lead to formulation of a rival theory, and it never talks about an idea for an experiment that could be used to test a rival idea thereby turning it into a theory. It's always inane crap. Always. x(e) is zero. And y(e) is fucking huge. We're even talking about it on Slashdot right now, as opposed to say, gravity.
Compared to gravity deniers, evolution deniers suck. They have nothing to contribute.
So now do you understand the animosity? They're already acting weird by telling people their conclusion first, rather than starting with introducing their evidence, and they always disappoint even after they fumble past that awkward introduction. That's why "disagreeing" with evolution doesn't get respect. Maybe some day, someone will point out something interesting, and then explain that it's why they "di
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.