Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Editor of Nature institutes open warfare against Christianity.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    If an editorial were published in a religious magazine slighting atheists would you be equally angry?
    Why should I? Are religious magazines supposed to be neutral on the subject of God in the same way that science journals claim they are neutral about God?

    The reason the general public accepts current science teaching in schools is because scientists claim they are neutral about God (a baldfaced lie of course, as the editorial in Nature makes abundantly clear).
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bob b View Post
      Why should I? Are religious magazines supposed to be neutral on the subject of God in the same way that science journals claim they are neutral about God?

      The reason the general public accepts current science teaching in schools is because scientists claim they are neutral about God (a baldfaced lie of course, as the editorial in Nature makes abundantly clear).
      So because science is religiously neutral, all scientists must be as well? If a scientist writes an editorial in which he confesses his personal belief in God and that man is made in His image you would be as outraged as you are by a scientist voicing his personal belief that man is not made in God's image?
      "Those who have crossed
      With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
      Remember us--if at all--not as lost
      Violent souls, but only
      As the hollow men
      The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
        So because science is religiously neutral, all scientists must be as well? If a scientist writes an editorial in which he confesses his personal belief in God and that man is made in His image you would be as outraged as you are by a scientist voicing his personal belief that man is not made in God's image?
        Silly boy. If such an editorial appeared in a science journal the editor would be fired immediately on the grounds that an editorial in a science journal was not the place to express personal opinions about religion.
        Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
        Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by bob b View Post
          Silly boy. If such an editorial appeared in a science journal the editor would be fired immediately on the grounds that an editorial in a science journal was not the place to express personal opinions about religion.
          I seriously doubt that. This persecution of Christians in a nation that is Christian by majority is just imagination. Look at how often politicians throw God around to court popularity. Speaking hypothetically, though- would you be as idignant if the situation were reversed?
          "Those who have crossed
          With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
          Remember us--if at all--not as lost
          Violent souls, but only
          As the hollow men
          The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by bob b View Post
            Why should I? Are religious magazines supposed to be neutral on the subject of God in the same way that science journals claim they are neutral about God?

            The reason the general public accepts current science teaching in schools is because scientists claim they are neutral about God (a baldfaced lie of course, as the editorial in Nature makes abundantly clear).
            Science is also neutral on the deliciousness of ham sandwiches. Still, I know of quite a few scientists who would love a nice, toasty ham sandwich. Go figure.

            Comment


            • #21
              Do you have more of the editorial?

              It sounds like he might just be saying that we were not created, fully formed, by God. Every Biology book tacitly says the same thing. If that is all he is doing, it is like mentioning that the Earth is round or that billiard balls are composed of atoms. Not really an opinion, but the accepted conclusions of science.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                Do you have more of the editorial? It sounds like he might just be saying that we were not created, fully formed, by God. Every Biology book tacitly says the same thing. If that is all he is doing, it is like mentioning that the Earth is round or that billiard balls are composed of atoms. Not really an opinion, but the accepted conclusions of science.
                I don't think it was very wise of him to state his contempt for Christianity by utilized wording so close to Genesis. Biology textbooks, at least in public schools are not quite that blunt.

                Apparently he felt safe in doing what he did because he knows that the vast majority of leading biology scientists would cheer his words.

                But he forgot about the internet, where others are listening in and will quote his words to alert the masses that there is indeed a war going on with the objective the minds of the children.

                Hitler had a more direct approach: have the State directly raise the children.

                The next best thing is to control what is taught in the public schools and what is pumped into the minds of the children.

                That is the Frontline in the war today.

                If polls are any measure, it is not working.

                The internet is the culprit.

                So the next step will probably be "internet neutrality" which of course will require the government to step in as referee to determine what is fair and what isn't.

                Mark my words.
                Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Silly people who believe silly things get no truck from people who actually bother with the truth; news at 11.
                  If you're really a Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bob b View Post
                    I don't think it was very wise of him to state his contempt for Christianity by utilized wording so close to Genesis. Biology textbooks, at least in public schools are not quite that blunt.

                    Apparently he felt safe in doing what he did because he knows that the vast majority of leading biology scientists would cheer his words.
                    Where in his statement did he say anything that would make you believe that he has "contempt for Christianity"? In your opinion, can anyone question religion or have an opposing view and not be considered contemptuous of Christianity?

                    Originally posted by bob b
                    But he forgot about the internet, where others are listening in and will quote his words to alert the masses that there is indeed a war going on with the objective the minds of the children.

                    Hitler had a more direct approach: have the State directly raise the children.

                    The next best thing is to control what is taught in the public schools and what is pumped into the minds of the children.
                    Who's obfuscating now? You quote one sentence in a scientific magazine's editorial and jump to the conclusion that the editor of the magazine has contempt for Christianity and that there is some sort of "war" for control of children's minds being waged on the internet. Can anyone say psychosis?
                    "If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him tell me, not you."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by bob b View Post
                      Nature 447, 753 (14 June 2007) Published online 13 June 2007

                      Evolution and the brain (Editorial)
                      With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by bob b View Post

                        "...open warfare against Christianity."
                        Sounds good to me!

                        As long as it's done non-violently and beliefs (rather than believers) are the focus of attack.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by bob b View Post
                          Apparently the editor must feel that the editorial page of a scientific journal is an appropriate place to publish personal opinions that are bound to offend the religious beliefs of a large segment of the Western society he lives in.
                          Just because they are the dominant religious beliefs of Western society, scientists and publishers should not take special precautions against publicly criticizing them.

                          Now, if they called the believers of such beliefs "stupid" or launched some other kind of ad-hominem attacks, I would oppose that.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bob b View Post
                            ... to express his contempt for people of faith.
                            Calling a particular religious belief irrational is NOT expressing contempt for people of faith.

                            ... atheists are now openly engaging in warfare with people of faith.
                            Fighting against irrational beliefs is not warfare against believers.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                              If an editorial were published in a religious magazine slighting atheists would you be equally angry?
                              Christians are supposed to slight atheists.

                              "Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, ...."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by bob b View Post
                                Why should I? Are religious magazines supposed to be neutral on the subject of God in the same way that science journals claim they are neutral about God?

                                The reason the general public accepts current science teaching in schools is because scientists claim they are neutral about God (a baldfaced lie of course, as the editorial in Nature makes abundantly clear).
                                Leaving God out of scientific theories is equivalent to presuming that God has not intervened in any way and is not a factor to consider.

                                This is NOT the same thing as claiming that God does not exist. God could exist, yet not intervene in the affairs of nature. This is why it is said that science is neutral with regard to the existence of God.

                                If God is factored into the equations and considered to be an intervening factor in the affairs of a given area of nature under scientific study, then this would make it difficult to rule out which factors were the result of God's intervention and which were not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X