Slashdot Mirror
Creationism Conference at Michigan State University Stirs Unease
sciencehabit writes "A creationist conference set for a major research campus — Michigan State University (MSU) in East Lansing — is creating unease among some of the school's students and faculty, which includes several prominent evolutionary biologists. The event, called the Origins Summit, is sponsored by Creation Summit, an Oklahoma-based nonprofit Christian group that believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible and was founded to "challenge evolution and all such theories predicated on chance." The one-day conference will include eight workshops, according the event's website, including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler's worldview, why "the Big Bang is fake," and why "natural selection is NOT evolution." News of the event caught MSU's scientific community largely by surprise. Creation Summit secured a room at the university's business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the program—or the sometimes provocative talk titles — until later.
Why isn't there a designated place for bullshit like this?
So don't go. Let them wallow in their beliefs.
Sounds like a good grounds to reconsider and reject them to me. Give them a refund and tell them to go book a venue elsewhere.
Is it possible for a conference to Godwin itself?
BACKDOOR STRATEGY
We may have been banned from the classroom,
but banned does not mean silenced. By book-
ing the speakers, and renting the facilities, we
still have an impact.
Creation Summit is visiting major college and
university campuses throughout the country,
bringing world renowned scientists before the
students. Scientists with tangible proof and
viable evidence. Many, for the first time ever,
are discovering that the Bible is true – That
science and Genesis are in total agreement,
and if Genesis 1:1 can be trusted . . . . .
so can John 3:16.
http://www.creationsummit.com/
I think everyone should read Ecclesiastes, it affirmed my lack of belief in Christian dogma. (or any religion)
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
University students, and especially professors, should be capable of understanding opposing viewpoints, and when they disagree, civilly making cogent counter-arguments.
I wonder if a large source of unease is that the students and professors know their logic and rhetoric skills fall far short of those ideals. They know deep down that the should be embarrassed in their inability to refute even such seemingly false claims by these creationists. Not because the creationists are right, but because their own skills are so weak.
idiots
god said, let there be light - boom, big bang
god separated the firmament from the ether (galaxies, solar systems, planets) formed
god created the plants and animals (life arose, and started to evolve)
god created man from dirt in his own image ( god tweaked the dna of a man-like creature making a hermaphrodite )
god saw that man (short for "human") was lonely, and used a rib from Adam to create eve (god took a short hook from the hermaphorditic DNA sequence, doubling that onto the "female" dna chain, modifying man from XY(plus hook) to XY and woman to XX)
Sheesh - I had this stuff figured out by the time I was 12.
Would there be so much "unease" about a fantasy convention?
What's the difference?
"including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler's worldview"
It is called social Darwinism. The rich are rich because the are better than the poor, eugenics, forced sterilization of people with low IQs,physical disabilities, and anti social problems.
It is a perversion of science but one that makes sense to a frighteningly large number of people. It does not have anything to do with biological evolution really except that humans have become a very powerful evolutionary pressure for a lot of species including ourselves.
Evolution does not have a goal except to reproduce which is by nature amoral. To use it as a moral or social guide is actually immoral.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Christians using deceptive tactics to advance their agenda?
Really?
challenge evolution and all such theories predicated on chance.
Do they have even the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution? At all?
discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler's worldview
Ah, Godwin.
why "the Big Bang is fake,"
And, I'm sure, also why the 6-days explanation is therefore true...
and why "natural selection is NOT evolution.
I wonder exactly how far their concession here goes.
These guys are really making a laughing stock of Christianity.
...you are a hard-core Bible-humper, literal interpretation is mildly insane.
I say there are really 3 valid responses to creationists for an atheist.
1. Ignore them. It's a waste of time.
2. Listen to their premises and reject them for being logically inconsistent.
3. Listen to them and convert.
Getting uneasy and yelling at them is a serious waste of time. It won't get you anywhere. It also make you look like a jerk.
Let them believe what they want. It OK to have a debate, but if they start getting belligerent then respectfully remove yourself from the conversation.
I follow those guidelines for all free exchanges of ideas. I doubt MSU will allow this to get out of control. There is a lot of things that happen at my university that I don't agree with, but they don't affect me, so I let it go.
So what? It is use of a publicly available space. No matter how bizarre their beliefs, these folks have a right to assemble and speak (assuming they paid the rental fees!).
If the conferences are open to the public, then the appropriate thing to do would be to attend and laugh. Treat it like the comedy club act that it is, and get a good chuckle. If question and answer is permitted, follow the rules of proper debating and ask reasoned questions. Bonus points if you are actually a believer and use biblical/theological sources to tear apart the spurious claims of these extremists.
In 3...2...1...
Opposing views on hot-button issues should not get the same access to facilities as approved views. Scientists know what's best for you. They will tell you what you need to know.
I don't care if MSU holds a anti-science conference... It's their freedom of choice in the same way that I have the freedom to be just a little bit prejudiced against any MSU alumni when I am evaluating the resumes/CVs of job candidates.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
I will relish the day when this religious insanity is a unfashionable as stone washed jeans from the 80's.
Trying to prevent the event from happening in some way would be rather childish im my opinion.
If I'd live in the neighbourhood, which I don't, I would just go there and start a discussion when confronted with unsubstantiated statements.
Ask questions like : What's the evidence you found to backup your findings ?
but since when it is a university's job to censor stupidity?
Let the conference go on, and have a good laugh at it.
Once upon a time, universities were places where ideas could compete, and the, um, fittest ideas would survive. Maybe not any more.
Why would anyone want to curtail these peoples' ability to assemble and share their dumb ideas? Public scrutiny is exactly what bad ideas need. The attitude that bad ideas are unsafe and must be silenced is regressive and usually counter-productive. Unfortunately the American University culture is exactly such a regressive culture. While the rhetoric focuses on "free exchange of ideas" the reality is that you're only free to exchange approved ideas. Why is the "creating unease"? Are the students and faculty really so feeble-minded that they're genuinely concerned about other people expressing dumb ideas in their vicinity? I really don't get the issue.
From TFA:
University officials say they have no plans to interfere with the event. “Free speech is at the heart of academic freedom and is something we take very seriously,” said Kent Cassella, MSU’s associate vice president for communications, in a statement. “Any group, regardless of viewpoint, has the right to assemble in public areas of campus or petition for space to host an event so long as it does not engage in disorderly conduct or violate rules. While MSU is not a sponsor of the creation summit, MSU is a marketplace of free ideas.”
The university is going to let the crackpots say whatever they like, and then ignore them. Which is as it should be.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Why would anyone want to curtail these peoples' ability to assemble and share their dumb ideas? Public scrutiny is exactly what bad ideas need. The attitude that bad ideas are unsafe and must be silenced is regressive and usually counter-productive. Unfortunately the American University culture is exactly such a regressive culture. While the rhetoric focuses on "free exchange of ideas" the reality is that you're only free to exchange approved ideas. Why is the "creating unease"? Are the students and faculty really so feeble-minded that they're genuinely concerned about other people expressing dumb ideas in their vicinity? I really don't get the issue.
"Natural selection is not evolution" is actually correct. Evolution is the observed fact that species change over time. The fact that evolution has occurred is not really open to debate, unless you're prepared to entertain loony notions like "God put those fossils there to test our faith."
Natural selection is the mechanism that Darwin proposed to explain why/how evolution happens.
Who let the crazies have the stage?
It is impossible to win an argument with someone who defends their delusions with the claim that "God planted the evidence for evolution to tempt you."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The biggest problem I see here is if the student body decides to hold a protest or something. It could draw lots of attention and potentially give the cause undeserved credibility. In theory, this could happen no matter where they hosted it, but college activism makes this seem a more likely place for it to happen.
Creation Summit secured a room at the university's business school through a student religious group
So this has nothing to do with science, critical thinking, debate, or academic discussion. This is an 8-topic 1-day masturbation session technically located at a college that can later be rolled into propaganda and touted as a hallmark of the legitimacy of "creation science" despite an overwhelmingly scientific concensus to the contrary. Its sole purpose is to re-enforce validity for communities of homeschooled kids, backwoods churches, and easily exploited students around campus.
This isnt being held in a student center because that would invite public opinion and attract unwelcome and highly critical dissent. Its not being held in a lecture hall because the topic of discussion isnt academic. and it sure as shit doesnt get time in the biosciences buildings because the hardware store would run out of pitchforks before the presenters could ever get approval.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I am saddened by these sudden cries for censorship. I should note that I believe in evolution. I believe that most Christians do, too; for example, the Catholic church in the 1950 stated that there was "no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution". But if someone has a belief that is different from the mainstream, let them present it. If it's convincing, others will believe if. If it's not convincing, they will convince no one else.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
I mean, do you want to be asked by a prospective employer "Oh, so you went to that school where the coocoo-club gathered?"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Have they had New Age seminars at these venues? When the nonsense is based on Hinduism, Buddhism, or some other Eastern faith does it make them equally uncomfortable? Just wondering.
Ignore them! Seriously!
We actively spend 10's if not 100's of billions annually on Physics, Chemistry, Biology and various other disciplines all around the tenants of scientific understanding. Let this intellectually short-sighted camp fester in their own little bubble. The best thing society can do with them is ignore them. That isn't to say we shouldn't be aware of their existence, but much like Internet trolls, don't feed them.
Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where the religious nutjobs found a home".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I shall therefore elude from making any comments to prevent any further damage to my otherwise fine reputation. Pax Dei et Lux Dei Vobiscum And God bless Slash Dot
at what point do you call these people what they are "mentally ill" and get them the help they need ?
Universities teach scientifically baseless things all the time, F'rinstance:
1) Economics
2) Philosophy
3) Theology
4) Psychology for dummies (i.e. psychoanalysis).
5) Political "science"
6) Art
7) Music
8) Theater
9) Sociology
I could go on, but science isn't a prerequisite for being forced to pay to learn a bunch of nonsense.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
- most strangely and remarkably - seems to only happen in the USA. Why ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
You must be new here. Do you think that no one has ever asked those people those very kinds of questions? When challenged to present their evidence for their claims, the bible is held up, and presented as "the word of the lord" and "all the evidence anyone would ever need", and then they fall back on "faith as evidence".
You cannot logically argue with asshats. They claim to already have *all the answers* and those answers are contained in the bible. And they believe that without question. They are as radicalized as any Taliban fighter, as any Christian abortion-clinic bomber, as any other ultra-religious nutcase.
You can either ridicule them or ignore them and hope they go away, or stomp them into the ground (like we're trying to do with ISIS), but you can't argue with them because their logic is circular. You might as well attempt arguing with a delusional mental patient.
They are lost causes, once they hold onto those convictions, they never let go, and will not even consider an alternative.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
You cannot checkmate a man who refuses to play chess. IOW, you cannot win a logical argument against those who refuse to acknowledge the rules of logic and the primacy of reality.
more logical and more fun for sure. Bible writers sucked at making stories.
Don't the creationists have the right to free speech also? This tolerance/acceptance business cuts both ways. Nobody said you had to listen to them just like they probably wouldn't listen to you.
Lots of stupid people did lots of stupid things.
Youa re usiung the same fallacy which is placing on the same level flat earther versus the rest. You can have all opnion you want - at home or at your church. At a university I expect evidence based studies. NOT opnion. If you want that go to a social study or political U (snark).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I say go ahead and let it into the science textbooks. However, require that they present only scientific evidence, rather than "Holy Book X said so". The result will be blank page. Let them stare at their blank page. It may wake them up.
If they want to create a "criticism of natural selection" section, I'm perfectly okay with that also. Science involves criticism. But, it should be made clear that gaps in evidence for NS is not automatically evidence for C. "Unknown" is "unknown". The default to a mystery is "unknown", not NS nor C. This "default" issue is often addressed incorrectly as a false dichotomy.
For example, the relatively sudden appearance of so many phyla in the "Cambrian explosion" is a legitimate mystery. So many phyla appearing almost completely without any (established) fossil history is solid puzzle. However, I don't fill in the blank with "god-did-it", but rather a "?", as it should be.
Table-ized A.I.
All the science students should go attend the convention en-masse, ideally to the exclusion of all others.
Then when the speakers attempt to make their claims, question them, point out their illogic (calmly mind you, but firmly) until they realize they haven't found the fertile soil they wanted.
Since the convention is trying to get students in, I'll bet the entry fees are pretty low, possibly free.
If the convention powers that-be decide to terminate the convention early, then that's a win-win (just not for them), and if not, then their speakers get the grilling they truly deserve (also a win-win - even less so for them)
I thought they were all about 3D printing cute plastic toys and stuff.
Have gnu, will travel.
1) The word "Lucifer" does not exist (cover-to-cover) in most modern and widely-accepted translations of the Bible.
2) "Lucifer" is a Latin word. None of the scriptures were originally written in Latin. Isaiah, who is credited as haven written the singular verse that mentions Lucifer directly, wrote in Hebrew, and hence never wrote the word "Lucifer." The only reason this word entered Christian vocabulary is due to incomplete translations from the Vulgate, rather than from the original scriptures.
3) Isaiah wrote his passage as a long list of honorifics being applied to a very human king (Nebuchadnezzar, specifically). The notion that he was *also* talking about some angel from long ago is a second layer of interpretation that is added to the passage, with no contextual support from the passage itself (nor from any other part of the Bible).
4)The Hebrew word "hay-lel" (used by Isaiah in the disputed passage) means "morning star." The word "Lucifer" means "Light bringer." The equivalence is rough, at best.
5) In the book of revelations, Jesus plainly states "I am the morning star." Is Jesus claiming to be Lucifer?
My first question was, "Did the group *pay* to rent the space for the conference?"
Had to...ahem...RTFA...but buried midway I found this gem:
Creation Summit secured a room at the university’s business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the program—or the sometimes provocative talk titles—until later, says MSU zoologist Fred Dyer.
Right.
So they got the room by tricking some undergrad student group, then plastered it all over their flyers and website
Give 'em the Boot!
Thank you Dave Raggett
Maybe the "academic advisors" to the MSU football and basketball teams can figure out a way for the players to get credit for going. Independent study?
The group tricked their way into getting the space...they didn't rent it through some kind of proper channel
from TFA:
Creation Summit secured a room at the university’s business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the program—or the sometimes provocative talk titles—until later, says MSU zoologist Fred Dyer.
The group then used the University's name in all their press materials, giving them false credibility.
It's a sham all around....this has nothing to do with academic freedom and everything to do with dirty tricks, half-truths, and manipulation from an allegedly religious group
Thank you Dave Raggett
is angry.
Relax.
It's not about debate. These are not people who will give up, palm-slap their heads, and say "I never thought of that before!" after patiently listening to an argument against their beliefs. This is more or less what churchy people call a "retreat" where you go to get schooled in the party line and feel good about it.
The collection plate is always in there somewhere. They may not be overt about it, but there will be literature that says they urgently need your help, and signup sheets for newsletters and mailing lists for even more money pitches. They will also use the event to further stoke the believers (who believe enough to take time off to attend this thing) so they can donate more, and maybe drag some new bloods along. This is how, and why, these groups survive. And if it's successful, the organizer of this thing has bragging rights he can leverage later to get something else for himself. Maybe a spot on a local school board, or city council, start working up the ladder. Debate's got nothing to do with it.
I disagree. There may not be any discussion in that room, at that time. But that does not prevent discussion, which will continue in many venues. I suspect there will be many other presentations, where opposing points of view will be aired. Debating over valid sources of evidence is nothing new, either.
Preventing the airing of unpopular ideas is its own problem.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Threatening an Atheist with Hell is like threatening a Christian with Mordor.
Creationists have the Right to Free Speech, that's why the American Government can't disqualify them from public office or round them up in camps but no private forum is required to give them stage time.
Example, during the entire Chick-fil-a homosexuality thing both sides retained their First Amendment Rights however due to the private nature of Malls where the stores were only the supporters of the franchise were allowed to set up next to the location, people objecting to the CEO's opinion on homosexuality were relegated to the public land surrounding the Mall. Fair or not it is legal, if you want to change that go ahead and try, but that's the way it is now.
No. If the prevent the presentation, an interviewer might ask, "Oh, you went to that pro-censorship university?"
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
What's obvious from this is that the campus religious group was played by the creationist organization, getting space at a public university vs. some random Baptist church hall in Alabama, to spout their nonsense. They'll then turn around in their next round of PR blather and claim these views were debated, successfully (since I doubt they'll accept any counter-arguments) at said university, so clearly they're valid. The problem is a) the lack of actual debate vs. simply getting up and talking b) the appropriation of the University's name for their future publicity. If I were MSU's front office, I'd be very watchful of the latter for the near future.
Instead of writing off creationism as pseudo-scientific clap-trap, why don't we start referring to it as a sport? Kinda like how curling and checkers are sports. When I was a student at Ohio State, studying computer science, I stayed way away from the campus during every football event. The traffic was a nightmare, and you'd have to park miles away and walk to every game, probably getting a ticket because where you parked was vaguely marked, and Ohio cops will use any excuse to get more ticket revenue. Hell, parking for a football game at the Ohio stadium was in itself a sport on many levels!
Anyhow, so how interested we are in sports, as scientists, varies quite a lot. Some of us care. Some of us could take it or leave it. Either way, a sport is mostly an event of mindless brutes kicking balls around and running into each other. Either that or it's comically painful like curling. Or self destructive like base jumping. So if we start referring to creationism as a sport, we'll be able to be clear about just how we think about it: A generally pointless exercise that makes whoever runs the event an ungodly amount of money. The debate as to whether or not creationism is serious science is about the same as the debate over whether or not it's possible to have a sport that involves ice skating and sweeping at the same time without being reduced to uncontrollable laughter.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Am I wrong to defend their fragile beginnings?
It should be pretty obvious to you that your wife suffered mental damage in childhood as a result of religious training that was forced on her, and she is unable to recover from it and think rationally as an adult. You would be wrong not to defend your children from this.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
the State school can't really do anything about it because it would be an obvious case of religious discrimination.
No, it's not religious discrimination (not that it would matter). The subject material is both sensationalized and runs counter to the charter of the school, which is to educate students in science and humanities. This is neither science nor religion, but fake science pretending it is religion. Would you allow a conference on Cold Fusion using Palladium Electrodes if it were set up by the Campus Hindu Society? Any conference which occurs on a campus is somewhat reflective of that campus, even if the event is unrelated (rightly or wrongly). They should ask that the conference be moved - perhaps to a more appropriate location like a church facility?
If students and faculty are really worried about the image of the school, they should just put on a competing event. That is, if they really care that much about it.
And legitimize the conference? No, that would certainly backfire, offering the visibility that this pseudo-science is looking for. Merely engaging them is an admission that they hold an arguable point. It's the last thing they should do.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
these frauds will certainly try to associate themselves with the university in order to gain an illusion of legitimacy. Otherwise, they would have held it at a local church.
How about a Cold Fusion conference in the Physics department? A White Power rally in the African Studies department? A Holocaust Denier's conference in the Jewish Studies department? A Westboro Baptist Church meeting in the LGBT studies department?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
too bad it won't work.
Don't the creationists have the right to free speech also? This tolerance/acceptance business cuts both ways. Nobody said you had to listen to them just like they probably wouldn't listen to you.
Nobody said governments and lawmakers had to listen to them either, but they do. And quite intently.
You mean, like church?
How people hold on to old fashioned, outmoded, and completely disproved ideas. I thought the last of the major Creationism crap happened in the 1920s. Apparently, the bible thumpers don't quit easily. The definition of stupidity is repeating the same thing over and over despite being wrong.
It's very ironic that the Creation Summit provides proof of evolution. Evolution of the sneaky methods they have to employ to push their agenda.
I see a possibility for a cold fusion conference in a Physics department.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Creationists have the Right to Free Speech, that's why the American Government can't disqualify them from public office or round them up in camps.
Really!? What is this, a crusade or an inquisition? If you don't have the right scientific viewpoint and able to glibly mouth the latest theory you are to be pilloried? When was the last time a group of people because of beliefs or nationality were rounded up into camps? I could give you a list...
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion point to a freedom of conscience for you and everyone else. Worship God, Satan, Science or the flying spaghetti monster if you wish. When you and any one else say to round up those you don't agree with, you are NOT tolerant, accepting, or enlightened.
If you can't leave those alone who think and believe differently than you, then don't expect them to do the same to you. Having a conference near you is not the same as having a rabid christian screaming in your face.
And to those of you who are rabid about your (any) belief and want to scream it into someone else's face...DON'T.
There is an old saying: 'A man convinced against is will is of the same opinion still'. Screaming in someone's face or browbeating them or calling their POV evil is just not effective. The only way to get through to them is to have a civil discussion in which you, with solid reasoning, convince them how they are wrong and you are right. Any other way is just counterproductive.
I think a lot of you don't know that there is a good deal of science that goes into the creationism theory. In fact, most creationists do believe in evolution, but more that evolution has been guided to where it is today vs science who believes we are a result of randomness combined with natural selection and evolution.
The main difference is that ceeationism teaches that evidence points to someone or something that initiated our universe (aka the "uncreated creator") and science keeps looking for and adjusting theories to best understand the universe, but has ruled out the possibility that there might be a creator.
Now, this group...I don't know, They may be of the ones who think the earth is 6000 years old.
There are plenty of reasons why modern day scientists might be wrong (laws of entropy being one example, another being the dilemma of how time started), and there are plenty of reasons why creationists may be wrong (Multiverse theory could prove start of time in our universe).
So actually, a great discussion of the top minds in each field would really be a welcome event. It would be great to have this and have it publicized all over and then you let people decide. Not only that, but it could result in new theories or in modifications to each group's theories.
But when one side just starts making fun of the other, I don't know if that will happen (look at the comments alone on this slashdot article and you'll see many people talking about "Sorry, but the religious people who deny science have neither science nor evidence on their hand. So treating them like you need to make room for them in "scientific discourse" is bullshit." clearly shows that it is in fact the science community who is unaware of the creationists beliefs. They just disregard them as crazy people and don't look at their facts.
Sounds like all you are missing would be an orgy in the cafeteria. Speech is protected even if it is offensive vile speech. A very similar case to your Holocaust Denier's one was litigated all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
Time to offend someone
I'll bet the PC tards running MSU would've rolled out the red carpets. Hypocrites.
So it's a religious conference, they happen all the time at state unis. What's the problem? Just as long as they abide by the rules.
It is of course a worrying development if a religious group is able to hold a conference at a prestigious university to give its ideas a scientific guise.
If this cannot be prevented, try holding a scientific conference on the topic of creationis, thus in contrast to what gstoddart holds, analyse the subject through scienfic discourse.
Why don't the churches let physicists, geneticists and other scientists read lectures in churches instead of their Sunday/Saturday/whatever day sermons?
You can't handle the truth.
Now I am intrigued. If one side plays chess on their moves and one side plays checkers, who has the winning strategy?
Anyone who graduated from an NCAA member University should demand their tuition be refunded. http://www.businessweek.com/ar...
I honestly don't know why anyone cares. Let them believe whatever they want to believe, it doesn't affect me or my family.
Let's book seminars at MSU on the *science* of telekinesis, cryptozoology, UFOs, astrology, and seances.
It is a matter of common experience that sometimes one person might make two statements, and one could turn out to be true while the second false (by mistake, deception, or whatever). So, arguing that one statement can be believed just because a different statement can be believed is fallacious. Each statement must be independently tested, even if both come from the same person.
The statements in the book of Genesis are separate statements from those in the book of John. True, both are contained in the Bible, but the Bible is a collection of separate books. It is deceptive to claim that these statements live in the same book; they do not.
In fact, these books were written by two different people. In two different languages. In two different time periods. Aimed at two different target audiences. If two statements from one person must be independently verified, how much greater is the need in this case.
Even if the statements in Genesis are true (not at all proven at this point), there is good independent reason to doubt the statements in John. The authorship of John is very hard to determine (the author never identifies himself, and his identity as John is inferred only by process of elimination), so we don't even know if it was written by a disciple or some other person with an agenda. In addition, the content of John is at significant variance with the content of the other three gospels (the main events happen out of order, events and teachings not present in the other gospels appear in this one, major content that is in all three of the other gospels is absent from this one, and there are other minor contradictions).
So there you have it. I can't believe I typed all this up. Nobody is going to read it. Or care.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is a perfect opportunity to actually correct ignorance through debate. You go to these things and then pose the hard questions - the ones their theories can't account for, or only have fantastical answers with no basis in fact. Any time someone with a broken theory decides to showcase it in the face of solid science he's doing the world a favour by providing an opportunity for those who know better to show everyone why it's broken.
The absolute worst thing that could happen is that a creationist conference could be held in a place that is absent of any opposing view. It's much easier to convince someone that your opinion is right when nobody is opposing it.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Besides the faulty bible, the only thing I cannot accept is that they are banning pre-wedding sex. So annoying.
Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where the religious nutjobs found a home".
Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where free speech is permitted".
I aim to misbehave.
There are many different theologies on Creationism. Some of which have no problem with evolution or an older universe. Arguing one as being correct and the others wrong isn't a wise undertaking.
I think more people should focus on the love commandment from Jesus. Anyone can see that the world needs more love.
God spoke to me
Obligatory xkcd
We know because it doesn't even mention, much less explain, the Celestial Teapot.
Maybe these nuts should share a meeting hall with the flat Earth lunatics. The Bible is not an instruction manual for how the Earth was created. The Old Testament will not help me repair my TV either.
Just go try and check a book out of their library or use their lab or computer facilities and explain to them how they are a public place and you have a right to access those facilities.
See subject line.
News of the event caught MSU's scientific community largely by surprise. Creation Summit secured a room at the university's business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the programâ"or the sometimes provocative talk titles â" until later.
Don't Feed The Trolls. They like when you feed them, making you part of the problem. Stop paying attention to intentionally provocative attention whores.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It's actually pretty easy to prove there's no god:
Start by researching the composition of the human body. You can easily find this online. For example, the human body is composed of 57% water. You can further break it down by element, such as 65% oxygen, 18.5% carbon, 9.5% hydrogen, 3.2% nitrogen, etc, etc.
Gather all these elements in their purest form. You don't want to contaminate your experiment at this early stage.
Next, put all these elements into a big vat. We'll call this our "primordial soup." You can mix this as desired, just make sure you have the right ratios of elements from above, and whatever you do, don't forget anything!
According to the best scientists, it's a fact that life be can from Abiogenesis, NOT creation. In fact, the outdated theory from neanderthals and others not enlightened is something called "Creation." However, those in the know call it a "Creation Myth" so you know where that fiction stands.
Stir your soup, and think of what really happened 4.25 billion years ago. Focus on what life was like before global warming, flora and fauna. Concentrate your energy on zapping that soup with lightning bolts, you can probably get a Tesla coil going to help you out here. Just remember, stir the soup and zap it. Remember there were earthquakes, so shake it every once in a while.
Now since you made your soup from elements that make up a human in the proper concentrations, you should slowly see a human form, just like it does when a sperm and egg combine in a womb. You'll see cells form, then start to divide. Once you see this you need to stop the lightning bolts because that might kill your newly formed life, unless you designed it to withstand lightning (Darwin's theory of evolution can help you here ).
Feed the cells love and emotion, prenatal vitamins, song, dance and other things that a typical embryo needs. Except since you created it yourself you can probably get away with 2 dads, 3 moms, maybe a dog or cat, heterosexual or homosexual or any combination. Let your imagination go wild!
Soon (like within 9 months if you are really slow), your new baby will emerge from that primordial soup, and you will have your brand new life form! Enjoy!
I am not in the least afraid to criticize or argue with/against a Muslim or any other theist. The issue at hand isn't fear; the issue is need.
The reality is, Muslims are not all in my face, trying to change the laws that affect me or the public schools my offspring go to. Nor are Hindus, Saucer cultists, Scientologists, etc. Or if they are, it's at such a low level of effectiveness that I just don't care.
But Christians are in my face. They're screwing up laws that directly affect me, they have already screwed up such laws, they are trying rather hard to screw up our schools (further) and because they are actively screwing things up, I am anti-pretty-much-the-whole-shooting-match. This creates a rather exclusive, but entirely deserved, focus on Christianity.
The day they go back into their homes and churches and the public square to act out no further than to speak their minds, while they stop trying to use the law to tell me I must do this or that, is the day I will no longer be concerned with them. That day does not appear to be coming soon.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We can start right now. I assume you have several billions of years available for observation, data recording and so on, yes?
Oh, wait. The fossil record has already done much of this for us. Intermediate forms of life abound; also, the process of evolution has been repeatedly verified such that the process itself is validated without question. Evolution, (capital E) the idea that evolution is what changed us, as you sort of said, from single cell organisms to where we are today, is the very best hypothesis we have, because it inspires many testable things (including the process itself) and thus far, none of those tests have been failed. Some of them are inconclusive at this point, but it may take quite a while to gather the data required to falsify or confirm the predictions.
Creationism, on the other hand, has passed no tests, suggests no testable issues, and is 100% at odds with a great deal more than just "did we Evolve"; the idea that the earth, the animals on it, including humans, are a few thousand years old, is flat out 90 degrees from objective reality.
Science does in fact have a testable theory. And they are testing it constantly. And it's doing fine in that regard.
So, short version: One side does have a testable theory. Science.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No. Belief is an act of faith; an assumption/assertion of truth without requirement of evidence.
One can (and should) consider at all evidence and conjectures arising from that evidence with a measure of confidence, one that is derived directly from the ability of that evidence to exhibit consensually experiential, repeatable characteristics measurable and observable in our objective reality, where those characteristics appear to confirm or falsify the conjecture(s) at hand. That confidence might be high or low, but it is not based upon faith; it is not belief; and in the final analysis, it should not be absolute.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No. We don't know that. It is the theory with the most adherents today; but inasmuch as it depends upon physics that we have no inkling of, we're quite short of "knowing" that this is what happened. Right now, it might as well have a formal basis of "it started with magic."
We're extrapolating backwards; and like a thrown baseball where the pitcher was unseen, we run the danger of assuming the ball came out of the ground and trying to make up an explanation to fit that idea -- because we can't see the pitcher. If true, that would take new physics understandings/discoveries. The big bang has the same requirements. That should be more than enough reason to not apply really high confidence to the big bang idea -- yet. Still, based on hand-waving though it is, it's the best there is at this point in time because like the thrown baseball, we can make the picture work all the way down to the ground, It all makes sense until... it suddenly doesn't. The odds are decent that it is correct, and we just have to figure a few more things out (or a lot of them), but since we have not gotten there yet... some reserve is called for.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I didn't want to work at all. But that eating thing, and that shelter thing, and that health thing... ...soooo inconvenient.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
A while back, John Schindler and I wrote about the collapse of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and specifically about the dangerous degree to which the Obama administration was ceding influence to Russia in the region. We wrote as two experts with differing views on many things but with a shared specialization in the politics and foreign policy of Russia.
Apparently, all that education, travel to the USSR and Russia, years of discussion, exchange, and research, and our long combined service in various government and non-government posts was all a waste of time. John and I were inundated by tweets and emails that crisply, often in fewer than 140 characters, explained to us how we just didn’t understand Russia, how we just didn’t get it about what Vladimir Putin is really all about, and how we had no idea about how foreign policy is really worked out in Washington. We were too blinkered to see how the Obama administration had really played the Russians, and not vice versa. And on and on.
This, I should note, came not from our peers, some of whom engaged us in public, and a few who engaged us electronically and in person. No, these long-awaited clarifications about Russia, finally delivering us from our bleak and ignorant state, came from ordinary folks. The ones who, you know, read websites and stuff.
Why is this important? Because when it comes to numerous topics, there is no definitive answer. Politics, Philosophy, Ethics all require belief and faith. In the case of the origin of the Universe, there are surely differing and contrary opinions.
The most rational arguments for a creator as the origin of the Universe (has nothing to do with Theology) on this site will result in the post being modded specifically to censor the opinion. Even if the people moderating lack knowledge, the crowd here is predominantly atheist. Meaning, the most finely crafted insults will be modded insightful or interesting and everything else is down modded.
This has created an environment where it is extremely hostile for any non atheist to speak their opinion, even if they have in depth knowledge on the subject matter. It has also provided a safe haven for anyone with any level of bias a free reign to attack people with a different opinion, and more dangerously to be rewarded for doing so.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If they are not a student group the University has the right to tell them to fuck off, just as you'd have to same right to tell them to get out of your house. Even if they were a student group and they are doing something the University has the right to call it off just as you would have the right to shut down a party in your house where your kids invited a thousand people off Facebook.
The constitution doesn't come into it at all. It just means they can't be dragged off to jail for speaking, it doesn't mean no conditions on room hire.
John Lennox from Oxford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo49UhEV5rI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gKDP6R0jqc
How can scientist not explore the existence of God? Is'nt this wrong to ignore this possible question as scientist?
Is to believe that something is true without the need of any proof (god etc.), then deciding that there is scientific proof to what they believe. This is exactly the opposite of science. It's so laughable I cannot believe any university can let these people hold a conference. Let them go to their churches, that's a better place.
1) How evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler's worldview:
Hitler was a roman catholic who blamed the Jews for the putting Jesus to death, that is why he enacted revenge. He later converted to atheism, but atheism had nothing to do with why the holocaust started. It's also important to note that evolution never played a roll in the holocaust.
2) why "the Big Bang is fake,"
This is a common topic by the creationist, the big bang is fake because something can't come from nothing. Except God came from nothing or always existed, either breaking there logic from the big bang or breaking common logic and creating a massive paradox. It's also important to note that if the universe can't come from nothing but God can, God would be at a higher informational state then the universe, so basically the creationist believes that you can't create a universe, but you can create higher order and information then the universe out of nothing. This is the single worst piece of logic used by the creationist.
3) Why "natural selection is NOT evolution."
Natural selection can't be part of evolution because we've never seen one speices evolve into another. Well if this is there logic, we never saw anyone write the bible, we never saw Jesus, we never saw God, etc.. etc.. etc.. another flawed piece of logic from the creationists.
Why on earth do we put up with this non-sense. Creationism is NOT science, it's not viable and it have absolutely zero evidence in it's favor. It's religious driven dogma that harm life, dignity, morals, rationality and ethics. I'll put to the creationists to show me ONE piece of hard evidence that backs up the existence of God. Keep in mind you can't cause a paradox or use the infinity logic. Go for it, I really want to see someone be the first person in history to take this on.
Tue experts are hard to find...And by true expert I mean one that supports my views and opinions.
You should care because these tactics are used to inject the appearance of legitamacy into their otherwise personal beliefs. Same tactics are use by big oil to create doubt in climate change arguments. Their being allowed to hold such a summit AT A UNIVERSITY alone gives them credit among their base and allows them to make their assertions with academic authority... No matter how silly a notion.
I just don't understand why such hateful, anti-science talks and titles are allowed. If an atheist made a talk called "Jesus is imaginary" or tried to offer some kind of proof that god doesn't exist (through silly computer simulations?) there would be loads of people calling it out as hate-speech. Why isn't the belief in logic and science protected? This is my religion, and I find it incredibly offensive and oppressive that people are being allowed to discriminate against me and hate-speak at me.
meta name="description" content="Confronting Darwinian evolution where it thrives the most, at the state universities. Students are told evolution is a scientific fact while intelligent design has been banned from the classroom. But banned doesn't mean silenced. Banned from the classroom doesn't mean banned from campus. By renting the facilities, and booking the speakers, we still have an impact. The evidence for creation is overwhelming and, by God's grace, we're getting that evidence before the students. "
'nough said.
take hold of your gov. Science goes out the door and indoctrination takes hold.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They can settle the burning question; which of the accounts of creation is correct? The one in the first chapter of Genesis, where God starts with the waters, then the land, then the animals, etc. then finally on the sixth day "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27) or the one in the second chapter, where God creates Adam in the Garden of Eden first, then creates the animals and brings them to Adam to name, then "So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:21-22) because all the literalist believers I meet seem to get these two stories mixed up into one and leave out the parts that don't fit, and that can't be right.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Church, religion and teachings belong in church
Pseudo-science - especially that which pretends to convey science as based on the Bible is now pushing it's way into
real science.
When we've made the leap to this junk, it's time to move outta the USA - as we're going beyond simply expressing opinion, we're basing everything on the faith and belief systems, as interpreted by others - rather than by facts and scientific data and accumulated knowledge.
Protest on MSU folks - it shouldn't be on campus -but rather held in a circus tent with the snake handling preachers and faith healers that can cure Ebola with a wave of their hand...
Sickening and disastrous - the next Civil War is around the corner
Most Christians are embarrassed to be associated with these people.
Of course Darwin was wrong. In the bible snakes could talk, now they can't. We are going backwards.
This isn't connected to any department, it's presented by a student group. If a student group wants to hold a conference on why Cold Fusion research was suppressed by people who think the Holocaust happened, and needs to be supported by the Westboro Baptist Church, what harm does it do?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
After giving a lecture at the U of Washington on the Chengjiang fossil record, Chinese paleontologist, Jun-Yuan Chen said: "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Americans pioneered a safe, free market of ideas, open to all. Why is that eroded to using violent words and suspending civil rights to defend deeply held beliefs?
The moment I feel like winning an argument or repudiating a speaker is the very moment I should be listening for new ideas I could possibly add to my own.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle
As I read the comments, I see much fear and frustration that Christianity supposedly dominates American politics and the country. As a Canadian born-again Christian, it is difficult to see U.S. leaders as Christian when I hear of the things they do.
Many comments reveal an assumption that all creationists uniformly believe the same hypotheses. I used to be a Theistic Evolutionist and I would easily go back if the big problems with evolution and abiogenesis where resolved, especially amino acid chirality in complete poisonous opposition to the homochiral chemistry of all life.
There are various ways to fit scientific models in the Bible. You would be surprised how open-minded us Christian's are compared to those who throw out the baby Jesus with the bathwater.
In a couple hundred years hopefully belief in religion will be seen as ridiculous as the belief that the world is flat.
Something about God not playing dice.
Indeed my favorite bible creation story has this sort of directionality in it and thus is better to me that the standard model. But then my bestest creation story is about Spider-Woman. The universe is definitely made of wind. You cannot see it but you can feel it.
A life would be great for both sides.
...but only because our students are now so ill-educated and indoctrinated in socialist dogma they no longer have the cognitive skills to realize these people are crazy. If they DID realize they were crazy, they wouldn't vote for Democrats, either, who are demonstrably just as crazy, but in a different way.
Come on people! Let's hit the 4 digit threshold by posting your arguments and counter-arguments until we all feel dizzy by being on the circular argument merry-go-around for too long!
Stalin and Mao found no ideas in atheism -- lack of belief in a god or gods -- that led them to kill anyone. This simply because there are no such ideas. Atheism has no dogma, no canon, no nothing. The state of atheism consists of a lack of belief in a god or gods, and nothing else. Consequently, ideas like "kill some number of people" by definition come from another source. And in particular:
Stalin and Mao were psychopaths (crackpots, frankly), and that is where you want to look to find out what drove them to kill. Whatever you find, it is an absolute certainty it won't be atheism.
However, the crusades were, in fact, driven to a significant extent specifically by theist reasoning, canon and dogma. As were the murders and tortures perpetrated during the inquisitions, the witch-hunts and subsequent burnings, blood libel, and pogroms, many events such as the 9/11 incidents, various wars, as well as the lesser but still despicable centuries of subjugation of women, repression of sexuality, interference with relationships and legislation, social ostracism, and so on.
I will also say that theist thought has also been the prime motivator for a massive amount of great art in many forms -- sculpture, paintings, architecture, music and a whole host of various other artifacts, and when charity and compassion are foremost and the compulsion to impose belief is absent or at least minimal, theism is at its absolute best at doing little to no harm while doing extensive good. This does not, in any way, say that we should forget, or forgive, or ignore, the many evils done in the past, being done now, and those impending, in the cause of theism.
So you want to be very careful before you go waving Stalin and Mao around as examples of atheism causing problems, or, as a counter to the historical fact of the murders committed directly for the (various) causes of religion . Atheism providing a rationale to harm others is not the reality. It's never been the reality. Claiming it is the reality is either disingenuous or ignorant.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I had to think about that. I don't have much time for creationism but I think their arguments have been underestimated.
The main problem with creationism is not that their arguments are so weak. I believe some of their arguments are valid and too easily dismissed by let's say 'most people who believe in evolution theory'. For instance it's a very legitimate concern that the power of the combination of selection and random variation may be too weak to explain what we see around us.
The thing is that the approach is one of case-making rather than scientific investigation. That's why you can't discuss with them. The arguments they'll come up with will be borrowed (in let's say, the best cases) from investigation that is arguably scientific. So it's not really proper to dismiss the arguments as a rehash of things that have long been settled. but because the appoach is one of case making, the arguments are only pursued as long as they can support a case. The story ends once the case is won.
Another approach is to accept the validity of some of the creationist's objections and to just keep on digging and finding out how it works.
And gradually you figure out more. And that is what has happened and will happen. A lot of work has been done on the speed of evolution since the first iteration of Fred Hoyle's Junkyard Tornado argument in 1982.
Look this should not be a big deal. The schools teach Biology class which includes being subjected to Creationism and all that comes with. Education should include more than one theory. Its all about learning to be a critical thinker and knowing what groups our society is made up of.
The only problem I can see arising from this is gluing the university's name to the idea.
Creationism; as talked on Michigan State University.
Sounds like the motto for the H-1B visa program! USA USA USA!
On the other hand, if the University decided that this type of conference isn't in line with what they think is appropriate for an educational setting and don't let them, they would use that as ammo for a grand conspiracy, etc...
Better to let them have it. Have the few devote followers show up to hear what they already believe in, and be prepared to have a bunch of young drunk immature university students show up to make fun and heckle them.
On the plus side, they likely have to pay the school for the conference space, which if it isn't funneled into the administration, might be used directly to fund real science (or arts I suppose)!
4. Thank them for renting the space, and apply the value to some science program (say Evolution 101) :)
Irony: Creationists funding real science FTW.
Not only did Hitler *not* base his ideas on Darwin or on the Theory of Natural Selection, but there is not even a single reference to Darwin in any of Hitler's writings. Even in the Nuremburg Trials, where they actually went through the personal libraries of Nazi leaders to find the origins of the ideas behind the Third Reich, none of Darwin's works were found, and there were no references to Darwin in any of the testimonies or transcripts whatsoever.
Even when Hitler made reference to anything resembling biological arguments for his racial ideas and policies, he clearly showed that his understanding (if you could even call it that) of the subject was psueodoscientific and Lamarckian, not Darwinian. And in numerous cases, Hitler's views on race and biology *directly contradicted* Darwin's Theory of Evolution in extremely basic and fundamental ways.
For example (from http://rationalrevolution.net/...):
-Hitler stated that "racial purity" was "God's Will". Darwin showed that there is no such thing as racial purity in the first place, and that secondly, races and species are not formed by God.
-Hitler said that segregation of species and races is a "rigid law" of nature. Darwin showed that there are no such rigid laws in nature.
-Hitler said that species only naturally mate with members of their same species. Darwin showed that many species naturally hybridize (in fact, research now shows that more than 10% of "species" hybridize in the wild).
-Hitler said that species are uniform in character. Darwin showed that there is a high degree of variation within species.
-Hitler advocated the use of race laws to favor only "Nordic" peoples. Darwin stated that no such laws should be made.
-Hitler despised sympathy and said that sympathy should not extend to all races. Darwin stated that sympathy was the highest moral value, that indeed sympathy was an important attribute for human success, and that we should extend our sympathy to all people.
-Clearly, Hitler's views reflected the traditional "pre-Darwinian" views of nature. Hitler viewed race as sacred, he viewed the Germans as "God's chosen people", and he justified racism, genocide, and eugenics through his sacred views. The sacredness of race is what made race worth fighting for to the Nazis.
Hitler publically declared himself to be a Christian, used Christian language and rhetoric openly to promote Nazi ideology, and spoke openly about his vilification of atheists.
...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
In his book Mein Kampf Hitler made numerous religious pronouncements: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Before his ascension to power, Hitler stated before a crowd in Munich: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."
In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Also, from a speech delivered by Hitler:
"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
http://atheism.about.com/od/is...
God here..........sorry to let you all down but yes. One fine moment I farted! Second moment it was my creation so I couldn't turn it off (can't destroy GODs creations).
So, who wants to tell them about the Pope's latest declaration? http://science.slashdot.org/st...
I am an Anonymous Coward from Texas... ..." Usually the rest of the sentence asserts some idea that the writer wants the reader to accept at face value. The writer knows that we all revere "Science." After all, "science" gave us the cell phone, the microwave oven, the Hubble Telescope, the iPad, et al. However, all of those inventions, etc. came from "Laboratory Science."
Interesting discussion. One comment was particularly pertinent:
by MozeeToby "They are borrowing the prestige of the University and it's faculty to lend credence to their anti-science agenda."
I'll bet that less than 5% of the readers of this blog have ever heard in a science class the difference between "laboratory science" and "forensic science." Science classes do not make that distinction because it would undermine their agenda. And, why is Mozee Toby's comment pertinent?
We have all read articles with statements like, "Science says that
In MozeeToby's words, "They are borrowing the prestige of the" laboratory scientists "to lend credence to their" theories within forensic science. "Forensic" evidence is used in court trials to help formulate plausible explanations for events that have no eye-witness accounts on which to draw. It is clear that there are no eye witnesses to the "Big Bang," evolution, the age of the universe (stated by another contributor as 16 Billion years, et al. All of those "science" topics are from "forensic science," which falls more into the general category of philosophy than into laboratory science.
Along with Mozee Toby, I, too, am disappointed when I read the philosophers of forensic science stating their theories as fact, while having their hands in a cookie jar that belongs to laboratory science.
I ask the question of Mozee Toby, "have you ever heard a prof distinguish between laboratory and forensic science?" If you, like me, have never heard such, then you (we) have been had---by professor/philosophers who practice forensic science, but won't label it such
As Stephen Jay Gould said, Religion and Science are non-overlapping magisteria