PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 1, 2017 14:01:10 GMT
Dean H. Kenyon - Biophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez - Astrophysicist Steve Fuller - Sociologist Marcos Nogueira Eberlin - Chemist James Dobson - Psychologist Paul Chien - Biologist Jason Lisle (Astrophysicist) Andrew Snelling (Geologist) Danny Faulkner (Astrologist) David A. DeWitt (Biologist) Jeffrey Tomkins (Biologist) Hugh Ross (Astrophysicist) Nathaniel Jeanson (Biologist) Russell Humphreys (Physicist) Michael Behe (Biochemist) Ralph Seelke (Microbiologist) Scott Minnich (Microbiologist) Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (Geneticist) Stephen C. Meyer (PhD in Philosophy of science) Douglas D. Axe (Biologist) List goes on |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 14:08:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 1, 2017 14:11:48 GMT
Dean H. Kenyon - Biophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez - Astrophysicist Steve Fuller - Sociologist Marcos Nogueira Eberlin - Chemist James Dobson - Psychologist Paul Chien - Biologist List goes on It will be more interesting to know how do they actually define intelligent design? Also, the claim of high number of scientists in itself might be misleading. It's more important to ask what percentage of scientists support intelligent design. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 14:28:42 GMT
Ther are few more:
Jason Lisle (Astrophysicist)
Andrew Snelling (Geologist)
Danny Faulkner (Astrophysicist)
David A. DeWitt (Biologist)
Jeffrey Tomkins (Biologist)
Hugh Ross (Astrophysicist)
Nathaniel Jeanson (Biologist)
Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 14:30:10 GMT
And? Are you trying to use some sort of appeal to authority fallacy to justify non science?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 14:59:20 GMT
Superdude, Your second quote makes a good point about the source of public views coming from religion and ideology more than from educational background – an article I had used today in another context sheds some light on this point: psychotherapy-and-psychoanalysis.com/NPI_articles_for_download/Greene_B_2009_Use_and_Abuse_of_Relig_Bel.pdf(The relevant part starts on Page 7 of the Pdf. Some great quotes from the paper include one that mentions an issue... “… important when we convene forums for the purpose of establishing dialogues across differences, particularly but not exclusively religious and spiritual differences. The first, who we ask to be the representative for any large diverse religious group in any discussion, sets the stage for the kind of dialogue we can have and whether it is a dialogue or a hateful diatribe. If we choose people who have the most extreme and exclusive positions, it does not create dialogue. Such choices often contribute to more tension and can make worldviews seem much farther apart than, in fact, they are. It can also be used to elevate marginal and extreme ideologies to a level of influence and credibility they do not deserve…” Another mentions how the same religion can be used for radically different purposes: “Once hijacked, Christian and other religious beliefs can be used to support the selective abuse of people in our society who are unpopular, those who make others uncomfortable, or those for whom there is a desire to exploit their labor, territory, or possessions without their consent or adequate compensation. Furthermore, Christian theology has been an important source of liberation theology for African Americans in their struggle against racism.” |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 15:09:40 GMT
Superdude, Your second quote makes a good point about the source of public views coming from religion and ideology more than from educational background – an article I had used today in another context sheds some light on this point: psychotherapy-and-psychoanalysis.com/NPI_articles_for_download/Greene_B_2009_Use_and_Abuse_of_Relig_Bel.pdf(The relevant part starts on Page 7 of the Pdf. Some great quotes from the paper include one that mentions an issue... “… important when we convene forums for the purpose of establishing dialogues across differences, particularly but not exclusively religious and spiritual differences. The first, who we ask to be the representative for any large diverse religious group in any discussion, sets the stage for the kind of dialogue we can have and whether it is a dialogue or a hateful diatribe. If we choose people who have the most extreme and exclusive positions, it does not create dialogue. Such choices often contribute to more tension and can make worldviews seem much farther apart than, in fact, they are. It can also be used to elevate marginal and extreme ideologies to a level of influence and credibility they do not deserve…” Another mentions how the same religion can be used for radically different purposes: “Once hijacked, Christian and other religious beliefs can be used to support the selective abuse of people in our society who are unpopular, those who make others uncomfortable, or those for whom there is a desire to exploit their labor, territory, or possessions without their consent or adequate compensation. Furthermore, Christian theology has been an important source of liberation theology for African Americans in their struggle against racism.” Good point Viola religion has long been a substitute for knowledge and education for certain people. It provides easy and comforting answers to what are often complex and unanswered questions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 15:13:00 GMT
And? Are you trying to use some sort of appeal to authority fallacy to justify non science? TBF you atheists have been using it long enough... |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 1, 2017 15:15:11 GMT
10%? I am surprised, I thought it would be lower |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 1, 2017 15:21:14 GMT
It's amazing what people can claim about science when they include sociologists, psychologists and a few fringe biologists who have abandoned their profession to the point they actually go to work for the Discovery Institute. It's like basing an opinion on vaccines by quoting Andrew Wakefield.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 1, 2017 15:36:55 GMT
Ther are few more: Jason Lisle (Astrophysicist) Andrew Snelling (Geologist) Danny Faulkner (Astrologist) David A. DeWitt (Biologist) Jeffrey Tomkins (Biologist) Hugh Ross (Astrophysicist) Nathaniel Jeanson (Biologist) Russell Humphreys (Physicist) I don't think it's fair to lump Hugh Ross in with the others since he's actually an Old Earth Creationist who has a very different interpretation of the bible than the others (all of whom are Young Earth Creationists). Similarly, Guillermo Gonzalez (the only other astrophysicist mentioned) is also an Old Earth Creationist. As far as I know, nobody in the field of astronomy believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 1, 2017 15:54:19 GMT
Can't believe Dr. Drew isn't on there!
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 1, 2017 16:06:09 GMT
It's amazing what people can claim about science when they include sociologists, psychologists and a few fringe biologists who have abandoned their profession to the point they actually go to work for the Discovery Institute. It's like basing an opinion on vaccines by quoting Andrew Wakefield. 10% of scientists believe in intelligent design. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 1, 2017 16:14:16 GMT
It's amazing what people can claim about science when they include sociologists, psychologists and a few fringe biologists who have abandoned their profession to the point they actually go to work for the Discovery Institute. It's like basing an opinion on vaccines by quoting Andrew Wakefield. 10% of scientists believe in intelligent design. Journal, issue and page number? |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 1, 2017 16:20:46 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 16:27:52 GMT
10% of scientists believe in intelligent design. Dubious nature of this statement aside... you let us know when they have evidence to support that belief. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 16:30:31 GMT
And? Are you trying to use some sort of appeal to authority fallacy to justify non science? TBF you atheists have been using it long enough... Examples? |
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Jun 1, 2017 16:36:30 GMT
And? Are you trying to use some sort of appeal to authority fallacy to justify non science? TBF you atheists have been using it long enough... Don't lie. It really doesn't help your point. Sure, it's all you really have, but that should tell you that the best decision is to get educated on the subject, not lie. |
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Jun 1, 2017 16:36:48 GMT
TBF you atheists have been using it long enough... Examples? His anus. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 16:40:20 GMT
It's amazing what people can claim about science when they include sociologists, psychologists and a few fringe biologists who have abandoned their profession to the point they actually go to work for the Discovery Institute. It's like basing an opinion on vaccines by quoting Andrew Wakefield. 10% of scientists believe in intelligent design. Source? You do realize even if that's true that still doesn't help your argument any more than if 10% of scientists believed in a flat earth. |
|
