So are hemophiliacs godless sinners who brought their hereditary disorder on theirselves? Also, his logic seems to assume that every species needs to develop it's own ability to have blood clot, I guess
God sent a bloodclot into my grandmothers brain. Thanks God you asshole.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Intellectual integrity is a moral value. If being moral requires you to sacrifice intellectual integrity, you're sort of fucked.
|Johnny Madhouse |
Millions of triggers? Really, little non-educated girl who doesn't really understand what she's saying?
I hate this.
|Shanghai Tippytap |
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7527.full someone with a youtube account put this in his comments.
Complex systems evolve in parts over many generations. What is so hard to understand about that?
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
Again and again, anti-evolutionists talk about the moral implications of evolution, as if that matters. We're supposed to believe what we believe about the world based on what is morally edifying, not on the evidence. Here's an example from a 2005 interview with Rick Santorum by NPR's Steve Inskeep:
INSKEEP: Why do what you see as holes in the theory of evolution, and there are scientists who will hear on our air that will disagree with the idea that there really are that many holes...
Sen. SANTORUM: Sure.
Sen. SANTORUM: I just think they're wrong.
INSKEEP: ...why does that particular item of the academic curriculum concern you as a United States senator?
Sen. SANTORUM: It has huge...
INSKEEP: Why would those holes matter to you?
Sen. SANTORUM: ...consequences for society and it's where we come from. Does man have a purpose? Is there a purpose for our lives? Or are we just simply, you know, the result of chance. If we're the result of chance, if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us that if, in fact, we are a creation of a being that has moral demands.
So Rick seems to be saying is that he wants to base his beliefs about science on what he considers to be morally edifying. Obviously, that's bad science, but I think it's also bad morality. INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY IS A MORAL VALUE. In fact, I think it's the first moral value. If you can adjust your beliefs about the world based on your moral beliefs instead of the evidence, you'll be adjusting your moral beliefs based on expediency before long.
Anytime crap like this is brought up in regards to religion, I always have to ask, "What does any of this have to do with being a good person?"
Unless of course you start from the premise that the world was created in keeping with certain moral beliefs, and basing your reality on those beliefs rather than observed facts (which are flawed and not infallible) is the correct way to intellectual integrity.
Obviously this requires starting with certainty, which is why the defining principle of faith is removing doubt and skepticism. Its not an inconsistent view on his part, its just an ideology fundamentally at odds with scientific skepticism.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Well, it's not inconsitent for Rick Santorum, what with him being a giant douche and all.
But I don't think that faith has to be about removing uncertainty. It can be about sucking it up and living with it. We're finite beings in an infinite universe, and that means we're all going to have to go to our graves being wrong about many many things. It takes strength to believe anything under those circumstances, but it also takes humility.
Faith without doubt is cheating.
Faith still means you're believing something without reason.
John Holmes Motherfucker
No, it means believing something without proof. I would maintain that if believing something allows you to function at a higher level, that's a perfectly logical reason for believing it, but you may be wrong. Iit works better for principles like "everything happens for a reason" and "let go and let god" than for" Jesus died for our sins." or sheer fucking idiocy like "Adam and Eve were historical figures"
If you go around believing that everything happens for a reason, and things work out REALLY well repeatedly, you may want to call that evidence, but it's not proof and it never will be, and you can always point to someone for which things seem to be working out horribly for no discernible reason, and you know that it could happen to you.
If believing something makes it necessary for you to fight against the evidence, that is not functioning at a higher level.
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious |
Fucking everything in this world, how does that works?
Creationism! It's non-sequiturtastic!
I like this new strategy of disguising science lessons as creationist propaganda. They think they're gonna hear about God and then BAM! Magic School Bus'd!
Also, not surprised that leeches know so much about coagulants.
My cousins keep egging me to watch this DVD series...
Blood clots again?? The evolution of the clotting mechanism was a favourite stump for creationists after the evolution of the eyeball was studied. Clotting was studied and explained as well. I thought they were on to the miracle of the fire beetle's amazing ass, but maybe they've just gone back to clotting, because it's all hard to understand chemistry rather than something you can understand with structures.
What ever it is that we don't know absolutely everything about, these yahoo's will use to argue for creation.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|