<If I disagree with Dawkins that means I think his soul is different than others>?>
Apparently... you put him on a pedastal, worthy of your ire.
<Yes, but more importantly, who use the name of science to promote those beliefs and are allowed to do so..>
You put science on a pedastal too I see.
<I realize the people you work with may not be like those famous names. >
Nor like other famous names you chose to ignore, drawn to those with contray beliefs to yours.
<I haven't heard any scientist but you say they're flouting the basic rules of science.>
That's cause you're not talking to them... they wouldn't bother. That's BIO 181 (first semster), God isn't objective... cant' test, not included, move on.
<Why was McWhorter compelled to disavow his interview with Behe within hours of its posting on the net? If that isn't reminiscent of Galileo being forced to recant, what is it?>
Please! You think there was some 'Science Czar' swooping down on him? He was probably embarrassed... that's his problem if he hangs with someone who thinks he looks stupid and he decides to do that. Gimme a break... we're talking about Science as an institution, you're way off base here.
<Yes, but thats another issue not for this thread.>
I disagree... you're bringing up individual (aethist I guess) scientists that happen to have a market for their books and saying what a crime that is..... THEY DONT SELL BUPKISS~!
<Heh, if I bother you so much, you don't have to respond. Not that I'm asking you not to or to. Whatever you wish.>
Good point... no reason to spend time on every misguided person. :)) Pearls before swine?
DAK |
