Editor of Nature institutes open warfare against Christianity.

[SUTG]

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.

 

[bob b]

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.

 

[Mr Jack]

Silly people who believe silly things get no truck from people who actually bother with the truth; news at 11.

 

[pleasedtomeetme]

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?

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? :kookoo:

 

[Skeptic]

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.

:thumb:

 

[Skeptic]

"...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.

 

[Skeptic]

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.

 

[Skeptic]

... 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.

 

[Skeptic]

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, ...."

 

[Skeptic]

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.

 

[Paine]

Try reading the totality of what I said instead of "cherry picking" a word here and there and using a dictionary on a certain word.

The central focus of your post seemed to be anger expressed at a writer for expressing an opinion in an editorial. If I "cherry picked" anything out and singled it for address, it was essentially your entire post.

You evolutionists seem to fit a pattern: never directly address a subject, instead try to obfuscate by misquoting or partially quoting. You are a classic example of the genre.

I will not make yet another generalization regarding you creationists (although the temptation is nigh overwhelming). I will, however, say that you, bob b, seem to be incapable of both reasonable refutation and admittance of error, given that I have yet to see you concede a single argument in which you were obviously "truthsmacked," to borrow the board colloquialism (and there have been many such arguments, including this one). Instead you simply change the subject entirely by some abstract reference to the "patterns" of your opponents.

Allow me to put it simply. The point is that you said something stupid about the article, and I pointed out your stupidity. You responded by postulating that I somehow misinterpreted your very clear post, which seems to indicate, then, that you are at the very least an ineffective communicator, and at very best an immature "intarweber" incapable of admitting to an occasionally ludicrous post.

And I would further like to note that if you are denying your previous reference to the editorial as opinion, then it would be obviously implied that you consider the editorial's objectionable content to be fact, would it not?

Again, the entire purpose of an editorial is to allow a writer to express opinion.

 

[Johnny]

No amount of weasel wording can hide this act of open warfare against believing Christians.

Try reading the totality of what I said instead of "cherry picking" a word here and there and using a dictionary on a certain word.

Irony, how I love thee! It's most amusing when you accuse someone of cherry picking a wod here and there when your entire post and misguided angst is directed against a single sentence without any provided context.

You see, had you actually read the article (I know, I expect too much of you), you would have seen that the author's provocative opening line was actually a direct reference to a piece Senator Sam Brownback wrote in the New York Times in which he refers to man as reflecting a "unique image and likeness in the created order". The editor of nature, writing in reference to this, argues that man's physical body betrays its natural history. The editor also argues that not only does man's body betray its natural history, but now we are beginning to see that his emotions also reflect their natural history. This is in direct reference to a paper titled "Moral psychology: The depths of disgust", published this month in Nature.

What he's actually saying is not all that controversial. In fact, you'd probably agree that in a literal physical sense, we are not created in the image of God. The editor makes it unquestionably clear that he is only referring to our physical bodies.

Does God have an immune system? Does he have a scapula? How about a humoral head that fits nicely into the glenoid fossa? Does he have t-lymphocytes, b-lymphocytes, and natural killer cells? Does he have rods? Does he have cones? Does he have neurons that fire which produce thoughts and emotions?

Unless you believe God's body possesses these traits, then you really can't go on about arguing that our physical body is created in the image of God. The editor of nature argues that our physical and measurable bodies betray our natural history rather than having been created in the image of God.

Quoting part of the article that adds context and helps to clarify:

"This does not utterly invalidate the idea that the human mind is, as Senator Brownback would have it, a reflection of the mind of God. But the suggestion that any entity capable of creating the Universe has a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape adapted to living in small, intensely social peer-groups on the African savannah seems a priori unlikely."​

But let's cut to the chase here: it's much more fun to get up in arms about the evil evolutionists declaring open war on the Bible than to accurately portray an opinion, isn't it?

Bob, you can do better than this. You are a better man than this. I realize you are merely echoing more prominent voices, but does this excuse you from any responsibility?

 

[chair]

"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."

The reason I said that it was open warfare against Christianity is because it is essentially only certain Christian denominations (with the possible exception of a few small Jewish sects) who insist that human beings were "created in the image of God".

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Note the repetition for emphasis).

Thus, the act of "blowing off" this Christian belief that the editor of Nature did in his opening sentence, constitutes an act of open warfare against those who believe that the Bible is the word of God (according to the latest polls, a majority of Americans).

No amount of weasel wording can hide this act of open warfare against believing Christians.

The Nature editor was wise for not trying this against Moslems.

"a few small Jewish sects"?! I find that insulting. This is in the Jewish Bible. Remember where you got your Bible from.

 

[Granite]

And Christians truly question why they have received labels to the degree of "warmongers." A writer freely expresses his opinion in a paper only to be misconstrued as beginning some sort of violent conflict.

Remember that it is Christians who declared war on secular society long ago. The idea that they're surprised, and stung, when secularists push back is more than a little amusing. Christendom has pushed around skeptics, intellectuals, and free thinkers for centuries. Now they're getting a taste of their own medicine. About time!

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Quick question for Bob, did you knowingly cherry-pick one sentence from the editorial, or didn't you even read the entire editorial?

 

[bob b]

Quick question for Bob, did you knowingly cherry-pick one sentence from the editorial, or didn't you even read the entire editorial?

What part of "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside" did you not understand?

He threw down the gauntlet, I didn't.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

What part of "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside" did you not understand?

He threw down the gauntlet, I didn't.

I take it you didn't read Johnny's response, explaining how the author of the editorial was referring to a literal physical sense?

 

[bob b]

I take it you didn't read Johnny's response, explaining how the author of the editorial was referring to a literal physical sense?

The damage was done in the opening sentence when the editor in effect mocked the concept of "created in the image of God".

Nobody, including the editor, really knows what that phrase means in detail, so he was extremely unwise to "blow it off" as he did.

The phrase in scripture was repeated for emphasis, so any bible-believing Christian might conclude that it is important, even if the exact meaning is unclear. But it clearly distinguishes mankind from the rest of the animal word in an important way.

Thus, the statement that we should set this idea aside was only the opinion of an unbeliever, and should never have appeared on the editorial page of a scientific journal that claims to be neutral about religion.

To me this proves that they lie when they claim they are neutral.

 

[Granite]

Seems some folks aren't happy till they have something to complain about.

 

[bob b]

Seems some folks aren't happy till they have something to complain about.

I believe that Christians have been too tolerant of the ravings of atheists and need to wake up. The editorial in Nature should serve as a wakeup call as to what these people are up to.

When atheists misuse their positions of trust in society to try to impose their world view on the rest of us, it needs to be pointed out that they are doing so.