May 222007
 

While not every Darwinist is an atheist, just about every atheist is a Darwinist. So don’t tell me that there is no connection between ID, Darwinism and Atheism.

Thank you to EN&V for bringing this bigotry to our attention and another demonstration of atheist morality.
Chronicle of Higher Education Unearths New Evidence in Support of Gonzalez, But Tries to Discount It

Iowa State Promotes Atheist Professor Who Equates Bible with Mein Kampf While Denying Tenure to ID Astronomer

Iowa State’s Spokesman Tells Another Whopper about University’s Tenure Standards

U.S. Senator Expresses Alarm Over Denial of Tenure to Gonzalez at Iowa State

Key Developments in Gonzalez Tenure Denial Case, May 14-19

Darwinists Spread Misinformation about Guillermo Gonzalez’s Denial of Tenure

ISU Faculty Admit ID Played Role in Gonzalez Tenure Denial

0 0 vote
Article Rating
102 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
teleologist
13 years ago

Hopefully readers of this blog will have the sense to understand what my point really was.

I hope they do and see the kind of double standard that Pixie and other atheists use in attacking science and religion.

Where this differs from the “God of the gaps” argument is (1) that historially science has filled gaps, God has not (eg we now have a naturalistic explanation of lightning) and (2) scientists are doing research to full the remaining gaps, theists are not.

1. In the past, the explanations for phenomena such as lightning were not derived at through an empirical and rational basis. ID seeks to explain all such phenomena on an empirical basis. 2. Atheistic Darwinian scientists are not doing research to fill the remaining gaps. They are doing research to reinforce their materialistic worldview. This is most evident in biology and especially in abiogenesis. This is exactly the “Atheism of the Gap” argument that I am talking about. Atheists don’t have any empirical evidence to explain a phenomenon, so they revert back to the days of superstition and pretend that some mystical chaotic random force have created the universe out of nothing, life just pop into being from none life and a fox just poof into a cetacean. Who need empirical evidence when you have the all powerful “Atheism of the Gap” , may the force be with you.

Hardly. I very clearly put the bit in bold in context by quoting pretty much all the introduction to the argument.

You are either ignorant (which I doubt) or you are duplicitous. The context of the document was a criticism on atheistic materialism and its’ stranglehold on science. Certainly by only giving the section you quoted without other parts of the document that makes it clear the Wedge objective was not against science, rather the Wedge is only critical of atheist philosophy’s perversion of science, you were selectively quote-mining.

That is every bit as damning as the part I quoted!

True, but only to an atheist who want to pervert science and preserve their atheistic ideology in science.

And as you read it, bear in mind that the Wedge Document was originally a secret. It was only when it was exposed that the DI had to prtoduce this spin.

Exposed? Did the atheists steal the document? How moral of you. Did DI publish the document? If it was so secret why did they let it out? Or maybe it was as DI said that they gave the document to only those who are likely supporter to solicit financial support. Does DI have to report everything they do to the atheists who seek to pervert science? What paranoia!

Teleologisit, you refuse to believe me whatever I say!

I don’t know you personally. I can only go by what you’ve said.

How many people are atheists? How many were at that talk? Is it possible that a talk by an over-the-top atheist will attract other over-the-top atheists or modrate atheists? Do fundamentalist churches attract fundamentalist Christians or moderate Christians?

You tell me. How do you know they are a minority?

Did I say I agreed with Harris? ” Ah, now I am put in that noisy minority. How easy it is for you to misrepresent your opponents.

It sure sounded like you did. You complimented Harris (who is supposed to be an over the top atheist) on what he said. So I must assume that you are in that league. I doubt you would compliment an over the top Christian equating atheists with terrorists.

Science is based on methodological naturalism. Does ID seek to change that? You tell me.

Science is not based on methodological naturalism. 1. It depends on how you define MN. In the eyes of many prominent scientists there is no difference between MN and PN(philosophical naturalism). 2. Even if I accept the distinction, science does not and must not be based on MN. Science should be based on obtaining knowledge wherever the data leads. Should I rule out the conclusion of metaphysics just because it is not MN? This would rule out multiverse and extra-dimensional planes if MN is strictly the case. However, we know that is not case as far as atheists are concern. Atheists are happy to postulate a non-material universe as long as we don’t call that God. So the answer is yes, ID seeks to change the atheist’s MN perversion of science to a strictly empirically based science that follows the data without any predefined boundaries.

GilDodgen
13 years ago

All,

I was once an atheist bigot, just like Dawkins and Avalos, and a militant persecutor of Christians, just like Saul of Tarsus.

I can’t take back those years, but I can admit my error, ask for forgiveness, and do the best I can to make restitution for the hideous damage to others’ spiritual lives that I might have caused due to my ignorance, pride, and selfishness.

I would encourage atheists to think about this.

Gil

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Chris Heard, Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University, is a Christian who has written a blog entry, In defense of Hector Avalos (thanks to PT for the link). He starts:

Now it’s not as if Hector Avalos really needs any defense, least of all from me. Longtime readers may remember that I disagreed pretty strongly with some things that Hector wrote in the SBL Forum last summer.

And continues:

On the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views” web site, the headline screams, “Iowa State Promotes Atheist Professor Who Equates Bible with Mein Kampf While Denying Tenure to ID Astronomer.” Now this is really curious, for a couple of reasons. First, it’s rank hypocrisy: the DI wants to claim that Gonzalez has been persecuted for his ideology, and so their tactic is– you guessed it– to attempt to persecute Hector for his ideology. Second, it’s rank hypocrisy: the DI constantly claims that ID is about science, not about religion, so why should they care one whit about Hector’s view of the Bible?

After a lengthy quote from the DI web page:

What’s telling here is that, despite their outrage, the best critique the DI can muster is a half-hearted attempt at something resembling post-Holocaust sensitivity. They do not, and indeed could not argue with intellectual integrity (not usually high on the list for the DI when it goes into attack mode), that Hector is wrong— because, simply put, he’s not. The Tanakh– the focus of my professional activities and a significant factor in my own religious convictions– offers up some positively genocidal texts, and not just as narratives, but as divine law. As a Christian believer, I wish that weren’t the case, but I’m not going to whitewash matters and pretend that those texts aren’t there. I have even written about this myself (but unfortunately that article sits right in the gap between the SBL’s online Semeia archive and Rosetta’s archive of older Semeia volumes). Yes, of course Hector’s comparison is provocative, but it’s also accurate.

He ends:

Have I mentioned that I disagree with Hector on a number of points? He’s an atheist and I’m a believer; that alone will tell you that we don’t see eye to eye. But I am outraged by the DI’s attempts to slander a reputable and ethical scholar just because they’re upset that he got tenure when their pal didn’t.

So not just the atheist bigots are siding with Avalos, but some Christians as well.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Tel

Pix: From what I heard the DI asked some people to photocoy it for internal use, and those people then released it. So yes, the DI wanted it kept secret.

Tel: Well that makes it all clear now of course DI wanted to keep it a secret. You’ve provide such strong evidence to support your claim.

When I start “From what I heard” I am implying that I am unsure how reliable the information is. That you twist this to imply I am presenting it as fact is more of the usual misrepresentation.

Here is a web page of the “Seattle Weekly”, with all the details:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2006-02-01/news/discovery-s-creation.php

Pix: I know plenty of atheists, and none are extreme in the Dawkins way, so I suspect they are a minority.

Tel: Tada! How can you argue with this type of ironclad anecdotal argument?

There you go again. I clearly say “I suspect” and you pretend I am claiming it as fact.

You mean other than the fact that Pixie’s answer: “I found Harris’ talk to be interesting and well thought out.” I am sure we all would understand that to mean you disagree with Harris and you thought he was over the top.

I can find something interesting, even if I disagree with it. I can find something well thought out, even if I disagree with it. Again, you are twisting my words.

“then multiverse and extra-dimensional planes are perfectly compatible with MN.”
No they are not and multiverse and extra-dimensional planes will never be able to be observed.

Wow. I mean, really, wow. This is so blatant I have to wonder if this is a joke. Pergaps we should see the whole sentence that I posted: “If there is evidential support for multiverse and extra-dimensional planes, if they can be investigated, the theories make predictions that are testable, then multiverse and extra-dimensional planes are perfectly compatible with MN.

See there was that condition at the front there. Basically I was saying if we can observe the multiverse, then the multiverse is compatible with MN. You choose to ignore the first bit, and then object, because the multiverse cannot be observed. Well, Tel, you are wrong!

If (as I stipulated before) there is evidential support for multiverse and extra-dimensional planes, if they can be investigated, the theories make predictions that are testable, then multiverse and extra-dimensional planes can be observed.

Of course, by observed I mean in the way electrons and blackholes are observed of course; no one can actually see electron or blackholes. I really hope you are not going down that road!

They are willing to accept something that is completely non-material and will never be observe to exist in this naturalistic universe but they refuse to allow ID to make the same inferential theories. Hypocrites!

Atheists accept the existence of gravity, despite it being non-material, and despite no one ever having seen gravity. But it has been observed and quantified we can make predictions based on the established laws of gravity. If the same is true of the multiverse theory or ID, they can become science. If not, they cannot.

Where is the hypocrisy?

What irony? I made the second quote not West. Avalos was attacking West for something that he never said.

That is why I said irony, and not contradiction.

Besides I never said that Avalos cannot criticize ID because he is not a scientist. I can care less; I am only interested in the strength of his argument. What I pointed out was Avalos felt that he had to change the essence of what ID is (just as what Pixie have been doing) to give himself more qualification to criticize it. My statement was a reflection of what is apparent intention rather than mine.

Hmm, sounds like spin to me. Here is what you said, for reference: Avalos subtly refer to ID as a “theological argument” and therefore giving himself the qualification to criticize it.
First time he gave himself the qualification, second time he gave himself more qualification. First time you presented it as fact. Second time merely “apparent intention“. And second time around we learn you can read minds, and can present as fact Avalos’ motives. I wonder how you can be so sure (first time around at least) that that was what Avalos was trying to do?

By the way Avalos has a BA in Anthropology, University of Arizona (1982) (see here), so does have a science degree.

teleologist
13 years ago

From what I heard the DI asked some people to photocoy it for internal use, and those people then released it. So yes, the DI wanted it kept secret.

Well that makes it all clear now of course DI wanted to keep it a secret. You’ve provide such strong evidence to support your claim. Did that same source tried to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge? Or maybe he gave you the “Atheism of the Gap” argument, that someday they will fill the gap of missing evidence with actual proof?

I know plenty of atheists, and none are extreme in the Dawkins way, so I suspect they are a minority.

Tada! How can you argue with this type of ironclad anecdotal argument?

Really? So how come you could find nothing where I actually said that?

You mean other than the fact that Pixie’s answer: “I found Harris’ talk to be interesting and well thought out.” I am sure we all would understand that to mean you disagree with Harris and you thought he was over the top.

There is the money quote. I say the DI want to reject MN. You say I misrepresent the DI, and, oh yes, you want to reject MN.

Duh! Of course you are misrepresenting DI. You are trying to equate MN as science thereby misrepresenting DI as against science. When in actuality DI is against MN which is atheistic presuppositions.

then multiverse and extra-dimensional planes are perfectly compatible with MN.

No they are not and multiverse and extra-dimensional planes will never be able to be observed. Any predictions or observations can only make inference to these theories. This is exactly why atheists have a double standard and a stranglehold on science. They are willing to accept something that is completely non-material and will never be observe to exist in this naturalistic universe but they refuse to allow ID to make the same inferential theories. Hypocrites!

Anyone else see the irony?

What irony? I made the second quote not West. Avalos was attacking West for something that he never said. Besides I never said that Avalos cannot criticize ID because he is not a scientist. I can care less; I am only interested in the strength of his argument. What I pointed out was Avalos felt that he had to change the essence of what ID is (just as what Pixie have been doing) to give himself more qualification to criticize it. My statement was a reflection of what is apparent intention rather than mine.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Exposed? Did the atheists steal the document? How moral of you.

From what I heard the DI asked some people to photocoy it for internal use, and those people then released it. So yes, the DI wanted it kept secret. Yes, it was exposed. It was not stolen, but there was a breach of confidentiality, which was wrong. I do not know if they were atheists, they could have been theistic evolutionists, thetymight even have been creationist (some creationist are against ID). I do not accept moral responsiblity for every atheist; it was not me that did it.

How do you know they are a minority?

I know plenty of atheists, and none are extreme in the Dawkins way, so I suspect they are a minority.

It sure sounded like you did.

Really? So how come you could find nothing where I actually said that? Is it at all possible that you already have me labelled as a “fundamentalist” atheist, and so read my posts in that way. Anyway, others can jude this for themselves.

Science is not based on methodological naturalism. 1. It depends on how you define MN. In the eyes of many prominent scientists there is no difference between MN and PN(philosophical naturalism).

Plenty of scientists can see the difference. There are loads of Christians who are scientists and have no problem with MN, but I must assume eject PN.

2. Even if I accept the distinction, science does not and must not be based on MN.

There is the money quote. I say the DI want to reject MN. You say I misrepresent the DI, and, oh yes, you want to reject MN.

Science should be based on obtaining knowledge wherever the data leads. Should I rule out the conclusion of metaphysics just because it is not MN? This would rule out multiverse and extra-dimensional planes if MN is strictly the case.

If there is evidential support for multiverse and extra-dimensional planes, if they can be investigated, the theories make predictions that are testable, then multiverse and extra-dimensional planes are perfectly compatible with MN. If they cannot be investigated and tested, then I would say they are not science (I think currently they are in limbo; scientists are considering them, but they are not accept as science, precisely because no one can think of a way to test them).

John West never said Avalos cannot critique ID because he is not a scientist.

Avalos subtly refer to ID as a “theological argument” and therefore giving himself the qualification to criticize it.

Anyone else see the irony?

teleologist
13 years ago

It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!

You have audacity to accuse us of distortion? Pixie the Insincere Debater

Avalos’s comments are full of lies and distortions if he was trying to address the link I gave above.
1. John West never said Avalos cannot critique ID because he is not a scientist. AVALOS LIED and PIXIE CONDONED!

2. Avalos never directly addressed West’s quotes from Avalos’s book where he appears to blame the Jewish people for Hitler’s genocide. (BTW, Pixie would agree with this genocide if that was the consensus of society.)

At other points, Avalos appears to blame Jewish people for Hitler’s attempt to exterminate them, locating the origins of the Holocaust in what he calls “Hebrew racism.” Consider the following passages:

“The purpose here is to show that the Nazi policy of genocide was based on premises quite similar to those in the Hebrew Bible.” [p. 316]

“the Nazi Holocaust represents the synthesis of attitudes found in both the New Testament and the Hebrew scriptures.” [p. 318]

“[Scholars Katz and Wolpoff] fail to see the parallels between certain practices promulgated in the Hebrew Bible itself. Indeed, the supreme irony of the Holocaust is that the genocidal policies first systematically enunciated in the Hebrew scriptures were reversed by the Nazis. Nazi ideology simply had better technology to do what biblical authors had said they would do to their enemies.” [pp. 318-319]

“Hitler saw himself as trying to counteract Hebrew racism, which he saw as the main counterpart and enemy of the German race.” [p. 319]

3. West never said that. This is a straw man. AVALOS LIED and PIXIE CONDONED!

4. West never said that. This is a straw man. AVALOS LIED and PIXIE CONDONED!

5. Avalos claims that he did not spearheaded an atheist plot in Iowa. A picture is worth a thousand words, look at this website Serving Atheists and Agnostics Since 1999. It sure looks like he is leading the charge to attack Dr. Gonzales.

One more point, atheists like Avalos is a master of deception. Avalos subtly refer to ID as a “theological argument” and therefore giving himself the qualification to criticize it. This is the kind of cheap rhetoric the atheists have been using against ID from the start. They just can’t seem to keep the debate on a purely scientific basis.

teleologist
13 years ago

Gralgrathor,

How do you suppose to replace a worldview with a science?

That is not exact what they meant. The first part of that sentence says ” to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview” , i.e. an atheistic worldview that is not based on science and has perverted the empirical scientific methods with an atheistic philosophy. IOW, ID seeks to bring science back to where it was and should be, i.e. strictly empirically based.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

With regards to Te’s second link in the OP, Hector Avalos has responed here to the DI’s claims:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/avalos_responds.php

It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Readers of this blog should be aware of the duplicity of some of our commenters. They will make references to some things while leaving out crucial facts or have a different standard for themselves. e.g. An atheist might say “ID is much harder to swallow, because we have to then suppose the existence for this intelligent designer.” But they have no problem of swallowing abiogenesis or the Big Bang of the universe from nothing.

Hopefully readers of this blog will have the sense to understand what my point really was.

He will swallow this hook, line and sinker on the promise of finding some evidence for this some day. This is called Atheism of the Gap argument; if you don’t know something just fill the gap in your knowledge with philosophical naturalism.

Where this differs from the “God of the gaps” argument is (1) that historially science has filled gaps, God has not (eg we now have a naturalistic explanation of lightning) and (2) scientists are doing research to full the remaining gaps, theists are not.

An atheist’s duplicity can also be seen in the way they reference ID sources. Lawrence Krauss …

I did not. I quoted a big chunk so everyone could see the context.

Pixie does the same with his quote-mining in bold.

Hardly. I very clearly put the bit in bold in context by quoting pretty much all the introduction to the argument. To claim I am taking the quote out of context when the context was also quoted is quite a stretch, even for you.

Pixie conveniently neglected to mention this other statement from the Wedge document. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

That is every bit as damning as the part I quoted!

Please read Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Document” , a rebuttal to the Darwinist propaganda.

And as you read it, bear in mind that the Wedge Document was originally a secret. It was only when it was exposed that the DI had to prtoduce this spin.

An atheist like Pixie will claim that people like Dawkins and Harris is a minority voice among atheists, maybe or maybe not. e.g. I asked him if he agrees with a video of Sam Harris attacking Christians, where he equated Christians to terrorists in Afghanistan. “Do you think he is over the top with this inane and sophomoric diatribe?” Pixie’s answer: “I found Harris’ talk to be interesting and well thought out.” Not only do I think Harris’s talk was over the top, Moses Znaimer who introduced him at the beginning thinks all religious people are fanatics and he is fed up because they are responsible for all the cruel, wanton atrocities in the world. Harris spoke to an applauding audience assumed to be secular (meaning atheists). Did Pixie chastise them as a noisy minority and their rhetoric as over the top? NO, Pixie did not! So pardon me if I don’t believe Pixie.

Teleologisit, you refuse to believe me whatever I say!

How many people are atheists? How many were at that talk? Is it possible that a talk by an over-the-top atheist will attract other over-the-top atheists or modrate atheists? Do fundamentalist churches attract fundamentalist Christians or moderate Christians?

Did I say I agreed with Harris? No I did not. So you were forced to search out quotes that make it appear as though I do. In the same post where you complain about me doing that with the Wedge Document. Except I quoted the context as well. Hopefully others can see the double standards here, even if you cannot.

Furthermore, there are numerous groups out there that their overt and implied mission is to attack religion. One of the most powerful secular groups (ACLU) in American is constantly seeking to limit the religious freedom of “Christians” . Are people like Dawkins, Harris and Pixie a noisy minority? I don’t know but it doesn’t seem like it.

Ah, now I am put in that noisy minority. How easy it is for you to misrepresent your opponents.

ID’s goal is not to attack science and science or the principles of science are not antithetical to religion. Remember, ID seeks to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview,NOT SCIENCE, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian Worldview. This means science should be neutral and not antagonistic to religion. Follow the facts wherever it may lead and not just limited to an atheistic worldview. No more Atheism of the Gap science.

Science is based on methodological naturalism. Does ID seek to change that? You tell me.

Gralgrathor
Gralgrathor
13 years ago

@ teleologist — May 24, 2007 @ 5:50 pm

ID seeks to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview,NOT SCIENCE, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian Worldview

How do you suppose to replace a worldview with a science?
And what does that mean for science? Should the tenets or methodology of science be changed to accomodate this worldview?

teleologist
13 years ago

Readers of this blog should be aware of the duplicity of some of our commenters. They will make references to some things while leaving out crucial facts or have a different standard for themselves. e.g. An atheist might say “ID is much harder to swallow, because we have to then suppose the existence for this intelligent designer.” But they have no problem of swallowing abiogenesis or the Big Bang of the universe from nothing. He will swallow this hook, line and sinker on the promise of finding some evidence for this some day. This is called Atheism of the Gap argument; if you don’t know something just fill the gap in your knowledge with philosophical naturalism.

An atheist’s duplicity can also be seen in the way they reference ID sources. Lawrence Krauss for instance quoted from the “Wedge document” this way — ” But what does the document say? It says the proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. This cardinal idea came under wholesale attack drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Science is the villain. There is only one problem with Krauss’s quote, it is not accurate. Krauss left out the words “by intellectuals” in the sentence “this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science” By removing these 2 little words it gives the impression that the Wedge document is not criticizing certain individuals, instead the criticism is on modern science. This is very convenient for Krauss’s public relations campaign that ID is anti-science. The only problem with his spin is that it is not true. Pixie does the same with his quote-mining in bold. Is DI trying to smash atheism or atheism’s perversion of science? Pixie conveniently neglected to mention this other statement from the Wedge document. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. Please read Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Document” , a rebuttal to the Darwinist propaganda.

An atheist like Pixie will claim that people like Dawkins and Harris is a minority voice among atheists, maybe or maybe not. e.g. I asked him if he agrees with a video of Sam Harris attacking Christians, where he equated Christians to terrorists in Afghanistan. “Do you think he is over the top with this inane and sophomoric diatribe?” Pixie’s answer: “I found Harris’ talk to be interesting and well thought out.” Not only do I think Harris’s talk was over the top, Moses Znaimer who introduced him at the beginning thinks all religious people are fanatics and he is fed up because they are responsible for all the cruel, wanton atrocities in the world. Harris spoke to an applauding audience assumed to be secular (meaning atheists). Did Pixie chastise them as a noisy minority and their rhetoric as over the top? NO, Pixie did not! So pardon me if I don’t believe Pixie. Furthermore, there are numerous groups out there that their overt and implied mission is to attack religion. One of the most powerful secular groups (ACLU) in American is constantly seeking to limit the religious freedom of “Christians” . Are people like Dawkins, Harris and Pixie a noisy minority? I don’t know but it doesn’t seem like it.

ID’s goal is not to attack science and science or the principles of science are not antithetical to religion. Remember, ID seeks to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview,NOT SCIENCE, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian Worldview. This means science should be neutral and not antagonistic to religion. Follow the facts wherever it may lead and not just limited to an atheistic worldview. No more Atheism of the Gap science.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Hi Gralgrathor

The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general). First of all, compare the claim that life arose from nature vs the claim that life was created by an intelligent designer. For an atheist, the latter is much harder to swallow, because we have to then suppose the existence for this intelligent designer. Occam’s razor is firmly for naturalistic beginnings. On the other hand, the Christian knows there was (and is) an intelligent designer as an article of faith. For him, Occam’s razor points to ID.

Beyond that, it is worth remembering that ID is founded on the principle of smashing materialism, by which they mean atheism, but will include the methodological naturalism upon which science is founded. The Wedge Document leaves that in no doubt. From the introduction:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.
The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

Certainly there are some prominent scientists who seek to smash religion (eg Dawkins), but they are a noisy minority. Equally certainly smashing religion is not a founding principle of science!

Of course, many scientists are against ID, but that does include some Christians (for example, see this web page by Edward Babinski).

Many people see ID as a sneaky way to get creationism into schools and into science, the thin end of the Wedge, as it were. IDists deny this, but the Dover court ruling said otherwise. It may indeed be that most IDists really do not see ID that way, but the Wedge document has a stated aim “We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.“. It is clear that the ID leaders want to get ID in schools, and it is also true that most IDists are creationists.

Because of its clear connections to creationism, and attempts to disrupt science across the subjects, most scientists will reject ID just because it is ID. All this is bad for ID science and for science in general. Afterall, it is possible that they are correct. But can science afford to take that risk? Better to stick with mainstream science, and to stop the likes of Gonzales getting tenure (and like everyone else in this debate, I have no idea about the real reasons for that), than to allow the religious right to throw out a scientific methodology that has done great service for over a century because it disqualifies their pet thory, to allow them to teach school children that the universe was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, and that the Grand Canyon formed after the Great Flood. Sure, that may not be the result, but why give tenure to a man affiliated with an organisation with that aim? Why run the risk?

Gralgrathor
Gralgrathor
13 years ago

It’s a really weird way of looking at things: that there would be sides, as if both theism and atheism were banners to rally behind, persons to like or dislike. I used to just look at the facts and select the most likely explanation for them. Now I find myself needing to select values with those facts. Worst of all: I find myself slipping into this mode of thought with a deceptive ease. One explanation is bad, the other is good, instead of right vs. wrong: it’s so human, such a natural way to think about things, don’t you think?

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

“While not every Darwinist is an atheist, just about every atheist is a Darwinist.” Therefore just about every anti-Darwinist must be a theist. So don’t tell me that there is no connection between ID, Darwinism and theism.

teleologist
13 years ago

Gralgrathor,

I appreciate your conciliatory demeanor. I agree it is human nature to return what is given; when you are treated badly/kindly you will return in kind.

I think Theism and Atheism is a banner to rally behind. For a Christian it is a Worldview that not only matter in time but eternity. However, it is not a banner to like of dislike someone. One of my best friends is an atheist. The truth is whether we are conscious of our own presupposition or not, we make our value judgments based on those presuppositions. Facts alone have no value or moral predispositions.

As far as intelligent design is concerned, almost from day one with the introduction of Darwin on Trial and Darwin’s Black Box, atheists have decried ID as Creationism in disguise. Atheists have ignored the IDist’s focus on strictly the facts/data and instead attack their personal beliefs. Yet atheists are often upset when I try to point out that their view of Darwinian evolution is driven by their personal commitment to Atheism.

Christians do make strong absolute declaration of what is right and wrong according to the Bible. The dirty little secret (or most atheists refuse to believe) is that Christians never thought that we are better than anyone else. We recognize that we are only sinners saved by grace. On the other hand, we have atheists like Dawkins and Harris who considers themselves more “evolved” /better than Christians because they considered Christians as terrorists and child abusers for teaching their children Christianity.

Thank you for your contribution to this blog.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Joe

I thought this place was pushing up the daisies…

They could be agnostic.

That would be why I said “just about every” rather than “every”.

The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general).

No it isn’t. ID doesn’t care about theism.

I know. Even so, the atheist/theist issue is significant for ID. Just see how often religion comes up on fora about ID to see this illustrated. This may surprise you, Joe, but many IDists think the designer is God.

There are broadly two forms of ID. In the first, we posit ET designing life on Earth. But where does ET come from? Where did the CSI in ET come from? The ET designer merely pushes the origins problem to another planet. The other form of ID posits a supernatural designer who created all life in the universe, but is himself external to the universe. I.e., God. To claim that ID does not care about theism is perverse (but political).

The claim is about what nature, operating freely, can produce. Then one has to consider how did nature arise? It couldn’t have been through natural processes because they only exist in nature!

Right. So if it was not natural, that would make is supernatural. I.e., God.

But all you have left is sheer dumb luck. And that isn’t scientific.

No, we have the laws of nature.

Any evidence to support the claim that science was founded on methodological naturalism? Newton would disagree. And I will side with him over you.

Yeah, well Newton believed in alchemy, so that is no surprise.

And all those people are either stupid or ignorant.

Somehow I do not find name calling convincing. So was Judge Jones stupid or ignorant?

Pix: IDists deny this, but the Dover court ruling said otherwise.

.

Joe: Ummm ID wasn’t being taught in Dover. Also the Dover ruling was made because of the school boards’ lies and deceptions. The judge didn’t understand the science and he still doesn’t understand what is being debated.

Nevertheless, the Dover court ruling still stated that ID is creationism in dusguise. IDists had the chance to state their case, and if the judge did not understand them, they can only blame themselves. Why did the likes of Dembski decide not to appear in court?

Yet as it stands today we don’t even know whether or not any amount of mutations can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

I bet more Darwinists are looking into that than IDists are looking into how ID happened.

There isn’t any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

Genetics. In particular of non-coding regions.

Speaking of which, why do you think it is that both chimps and humans have the genetic code for vitamin C synthesis, but in both cases the gene is faulty, and so neither chimp nor humans can synthesise vitamin C synthesis? Oh, and why is it we both have the same error? According to common descent this is because the error occurred in some common ancestor, and was passed down to all descendants, including chimps and humans. Can you explain it?

Hector can hardly be called “ethical” . Just for his role against Gonzalez he is definitely not ethical.

Wht was his role against Gonzalez?

Could be because Hector is a liar who doesn’t care about the Bible. And I doubt that Hector even understands ID.

What makes you think Hector is a liar? And I know plenty of IDists who patently do not understand biology, but that does not stop them.

That completely missed the point. Gonzalez has done far more to advance the science of astronomy than Hector has to advance anything.

What makes you say that? They work in completely different fields, so it is not easy to compare their output, but Hector has a pretty impressive track record. What advances to astronomy has Gonzalez made?

JoeG
13 years ago

the Pixie:
Therefore just about every anti-Darwinist must be a theist.

They could be agnostic.

The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general).

No it isn’t. ID doesn’t care about theism.

First of all, compare the claim that life arose from nature vs the claim that life was created by an intelligent designer.

The claim is about what nature, operating freely, can produce. Then one has to consider how did nature arise? It couldn’t have been through natural processes because they only exist in nature!

For an atheist, the latter is much harder to swallow, because we have to then suppose the existence for this intelligent designer.

But all you have left is sheer dumb luck. And that isn’t scientific.

Occam’s razor is firmly for naturalistic beginnings.

One design trumps multiple accidents.

Beyond that, it is worth remembering that ID is founded on the principle of smashing materialism, by which they mean atheism, but will include the methodological naturalism upon which science is founded.

Any evidence to support the claim that science was founded on methodological naturalism? Newton would disagree. And I will side with him over you.

Many people see ID as a sneaky way to get creationism into schools and into science, the thin end of the Wedge, as it were.

And all those people are either stupid or ignorant.

IDists deny this, but the Dover court ruling said otherwise.

Ummm ID wasn’t being taught in Dover. Also the Dover ruling was made because of the school boards’ lies and deceptions. The judge didn’t understand the science and he still doesn’t understand what is being debated.

The bottom line is ID would go away if those atheists could only support their PoV.

Yet as it stands today we don’t even know whether or not any amount of mutations can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

There isn’t any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

As for Hector- anyone who denies a free exchange of ideas should be booted off of any campus.

There is only ONE reality behind our existence.

JoeG
13 years ago

This is too funny:

But I am outraged by the DI’s attempts to slander a reputable and ethical scholar just because they’re upset that he got tenure when their pal didn’t.

Hector can hardly be called “ethical”. Just for his role against Gonzalez he is definitely not ethical.

First, it’s rank hypocrisy: the DI wants to claim that Gonzalez has been persecuted for his ideology, and so their tactic is– you guessed it– to attempt to persecute Hector for his ideology.

What is good for the goose. IOW fight fire with fire.

Second, it’s rank hypocrisy: the DI constantly claims that ID is about science, not about religion, so why should they care one whit about Hector’s view of the Bible?

Could be because Hector is a liar who doesn’t care about the Bible. And I doubt that Hector even understands ID.

But I am outraged by the DI’s attempts to slander a reputable and ethical scholar just because they’re upset that he got tenure when their pal didn’t.

That completely missed the point. Gonzalez has done far more to advance the science of astronomy than Hector has to advance anything. GG also appears to be the top astronomer at ISU.

He should just leave ISU. It isn’t exactly a hotbed for acadamia…

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

With regards to the Gonzalez tenure incident, here is a blog post by a guy, Rob Knop, who is quitting academia because it is so hard getting tenure (hat tip Joy at Telic Thoughts).

The significant point is that this guy is not a creationist and not an IDist. Apparently it is hard to get tenure for everyone.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Hi Tel!

Hello anybody home? Does this guy work in the same university as Gonzales? Are we comparing apple to apple? This is how pathetic Darwinian logic gets.

Is it that different between universities? Are you claiming that at Gonzales it is relatively easy to get tenure, while at Rob Knop’s college it is very difficult? I must admit, I was making the assumption that the situation was comparable across the board (that they are all apples if you like). What evidence do you have that tenure is easy at Iowa State for non-IDists? Is this based on the fact that Avalos got tenure? Is it possible that ID logic goes:

*Avalos got tenure
*Avalos is an atheist
*Therefore Avalos cannot be a good academic (certainly this is the implied logic in the Discovery Institute article linked above)
*Therefore it must be easy to get tenure at Iowa State
*Rob Knop says it is difficult to get tenure at his college
*Therefore the situation at Rob Knop’s college is entirely different to that at Iowa State

I hope there is more to your argument that that!

If we are talking apples and oranges, perhaps another example would be Avalos, a theologian, and Gonzalez, a scientist? Is it possible that the requirements for tenure are different for academics in the arts, compared to those in the sciences? I would imagine the sciences requires much more funding to maintain a laborary (or observatory or whatever), involves publishing in peer-reviewed journals and so on. I doubt anyone expects Avalos to get funding from industry.

teleologist
13 years ago

Apparently it is hard to get tenure for everyone.

Hello anybody home? Does this guy work in the same university as Gonzales? Are we comparing apple to apple? This is how pathetic Darwinian logic gets.

teleologist
13 years ago

The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general).

Why is that? Because atheists have ignore empirical science and scientific debate in favor of ad hominem attacks with books like Forrest, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and the rabid Myers blog. ID is unequivocally an threat to the atheist’s metaphysical belief.

Provine’s metaphysics
Not so for William Provine. His answer is clear: there is nothing out there, we die in the most definitive sense of the word, and there is no point in even asking the question of the ultimate meaning of life. Where does he get this conclusion? From the Darwinian theory of evolution by descent with modification. According to Provine, not only there is no evidence for anything beyond matter, but the whole essence of evolutionary change should tell us that it is irrational to even look for it.

Oh yeah, take away Darwinian evolution and what do you get? An unfulfilled Atheist!

Dawkins observed that Darwin “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Wow, talk about the Darwinist’s blind spot. I should not be surprise as this coming from Pixie. As a devout atheistic Darwinist, Pixie closes his mind to any rational analysis to inequities for the sake of promoting his atheistic faith.

I look forward to your rational analysis then.

His rash promotion of a professor from a different university than Gonzales’s as an example of fairness at Iowa State is pathetic.

What rash promotion are you talking about, Tel? I did not say anything about a promotion at another university. Perhaps if you could calm down enough to read what I wrote, you might make a bit more sense.

His bigoted bias against ID is further demonstrated by his question here.

My question: “Is it that different between universities?” I live in the UK, we have different academic structures here. Therefore it would seem to be a reasonable question. I really do not know the answer.

As someone who claims to have a PhD and a working scientist, he should have understood any differences in the guidelines between universities would make his example invalid in the context of this thread.

Ah, so you are saying there is a big difference between universities, some it is easy to get tenure in, some much harder, eg Rob Knop’s.

Do you think it is reasonable to compare between arts faculties and science faculties? Or was that outside the context of this thread?

Furthermore, he failed to acknowledge the inequitable application of the tenure guideline for the same pool of professors at Iowa State should be the only basis for comparison. This once again demonstrates why atheists and Darwinists like Pixie is not to be trust when they talk about evolution. Closed mindedness has no place in science but atheists like Pixie is incapable of objective thinking due to their penchant to their blind allegiance to Atheism.

I have no idea whether Iowa State is considered a good or bad university. I would guess that at lower ranking colleges, thereis less money around, and so less tenured positions available, while at good universities, the competitionis that much higher. In any case, the fact is that at some universities tenure is very hard to get. Can you offer any evidence that tenure is not hard to get at Iowa State?

If not (and I suspect it is telling that you have not so far), I shall continue to believe that tenure may well be hard to get at Iowa State, and that Gonzalez may well have been refused tenure for reasons other than his support of ID.

The reality is that we do no know why Gonzalez was refused tenure, and you shrieks of “Closed mindedness” and “bigoted bias” will not change that.

teleologist
13 years ago

Is it that different between universities? Are you claiming that at Gonzales it is relatively easy to get tenure, while at Rob Knop’s college it is very difficult?

Wow, talk about the Darwinist’s blind spot. I should not be surprise as this coming from Pixie. As a devout atheistic Darwinist, Pixie closes his mind to any rational analysis to inequities for the sake of promoting his atheistic faith. His rash promotion of a professor from a different university than Gonzales’s as an example of fairness at Iowa State is pathetic. His bigoted bias against ID is further demonstrated by his question here. As someone who claims to have a PhD and a working scientist, he should have understood any differences in the guidelines between universities would make his example invalid in the context of this thread. Furthermore, he failed to acknowledge the inequitable application of the tenure guideline for the same pool of professors at Iowa State should be the only basis for comparison. This once again demonstrates why atheists and Darwinists like Pixie is not to be trust when they talk about evolution. Closed mindedness has no place in science but atheists like Pixie is incapable of objective thinking due to their penchant to their blind allegiance to Atheism.

teleologist
13 years ago

What rash promotion are you talking about, Tel?
Pixie: The significant point is that this guy is not a creationist and not an IDist. Apparently it is hard to get tenure for everyone.

For those who are not familiar with Pixie, this is vintage Pix. What some of you may not know is that Pixie besides being an accomplished scientist is also a champion Olympic backstroke swimmer.

He is like a kid that gets his hand caught in the cookie jar and he would say ” what hand?” . Talking to Pixie can be like . When you catch him with his hand in the cookie jar; he would launch into his backstroke. Pixie would back peddle so fast you might experience the Doppler effect.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

I thought I was posting about a guy who gave up academia. What are you talking about?

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

IMO, Pixie is a hypocrite and his defense of Avalos and attack on Christians is despicable.

Sadly Tel sees everything I post through creationist blinkers. My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8:

With regards to Te’s second link in the OP, Hector Avalos has responed here to the DI’s claims:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/avalos_responds.php
It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!

That is about as far as my “despicable” “defense of Avalos” goes. Boy, I must be really, really nasty to link to a site giving the other side of the story!

Then there is my “despicable” “attack on Christians”. Well the reality is that I have made no attack on Christians as a group. I have made comment (an attack if you like) on a very specific group of Christians. But that is quite a different thing. I think the Spanish inquisition were bad, but my sayng that is not an attack on Christians, it is an attack on those Christians involved in the Spanish inquisition. It is somewhat disingenuous of Tel to twist my words to make it seem I am attacking all Christians.

Let’s stay focus on what the issue is. The OP showed why Avalos is an atheistic bigot…

Actually the OP does not mention Avalos at all. nor do six out of the seven links. Only the second link mentions him. It is the Discovery Institute who make the argument about Avalos. It is a little dishonest of you to try to take that credit.

The Discovery Institute is hardly a disinterested party here, let us all note. As they say:

Avalos has led the charge against Gonzalez and intelligent design on ISU’s campus, helping to draft a 2005 petition denouncing intelligent design that ultimately was signed by more than 120 ISU faculty.

Perhaps we can see why the DI might want you to think of Avalos as an atheist bigot, regardless of whether he is or not (and I cannot claim to know enogh about him to ba able to say one way or the other).

Let’s stay focus on what the issue is. The OP showed why Avalos is an atheistic bigot, but to Pixie, Avalos is not bigoted when IDists are the targets of the attacks.

Perhaps you need to take off those creationist blinkers, Tel, and read what I actually said about Avalos.

However, Pixie has no problem labeling Christians “bigots” when his cherished atheistic beliefs are attacked.

Actually I do not particularly cherish my atheist beliefs. They are really just a default position due to a lack of evidence for anything else. If it turned out the Hindus are right, I suspect I would have less trouble accepting that than the average Christian.

It was, ironically, a certain group of Christians whose “cherished” beliefs were attacked that got that lecturer sacked. Unsurprisingly Tel is unable to explain why Avalos is a bigot but those Christians are not. He might have to address his own double standards if he did.

I hope they do and see the kind of double standard that Pixie and other atheists use in attacking science and religion.

I hope they check for themselves what you said about Avalos in the OP proving he is a bigot. I hope they will check for themselves just how little I have supported Avalos. I hope they will check exactly what I said attacking Christians in general. And I hope they will demand that you explain why Avalos is a bigot, but those Christians are not.

teleologist
13 years ago

Let’s stay focus on what the issue is. The OP showed why Avalos is an atheistic bigot, but to Pixie, Avalos is not bigoted when IDists are the targets of the attacks. However, Pixie has no problem labeling Christians “bigots” when his cherished atheistic beliefs are attacked.

IMO, Pixie is a hypocrite and his defense of Avalos and attack on Christians is despicable.

teleologist
13 years ago

Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation

Pixie’s strategy is to continue to spew out his irrelevant diatribe in the hopes of detracting from the focus of the OP and now his despicable behavior of defending atheistic bigots like himself.

Let’s get back to the OP. Do you think it is fair for a group of atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is sympathetic to ID? Their bigotry resulted in the university’s denial for his application for tenure. The OP was not exhaustive in providing the supporting evidence of this atheistic bigotry, but it should have been sufficient to make this case.

What follows in the comment area is Pixie’s despicable attempt to defend his like minded atheists’ despicable behavior and his hypocrisy of attacking Christians as “bigots” . When he got caught in his hypocritical duplicity, he then tries to blow smoke and waste people’s time by asking why it is justify calling Avalos a bigot. Why should anyone waste time to respond to his attempt of circuitous detraction? The case has already been made in the OP, if he has a problem with the specifics in the evidences that was presented let him provide his own evidence to dispute his like minded atheists’ bigoted behavior. I will not waste my time to repeat what DI has so eloquently presented Dr. Gonzales’ overwhelming qualification and evidence of his deserved tenure and how these atheist bigots have deny his tenure for his personal and non-academic related views.

JoeG
13 years ago

Yet as it stands today we don’t even know whether or not any amount of mutations can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

I bet more Darwinists are looking into that than IDists are looking into how ID happened.

I bet there aren’t any scientists looking into that. Darwinists don’t care because they already “know” that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

JoeG
13 years ago

The other form of ID posits a supernatural designer who created all life in the universe, but is himself external to the universe. I.e., God. To claim that ID does not care about theism is perverse (but political).

To claim that one form of ID posits a supernatural designer is perverse.

To try to claim that your scenario does not infinitely regress to the same point that ID regresses to, is also perverse.

IOW your scenario- the anti-ID position- also regresses to something beyond nature. It cannot be avoided.

Therefore to hold ID to one standard all the while ignoring your position also leads to the same point, is a double-standard.

The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general).

One can be an atheist and an IDist.

But all you have left is sheer dumb luck. And that isn’t scientific.

No, we have the laws of nature.

In the anti-ID scenario those laws of nature arose via sheer-dumb-luck. Duh.

Yeah, well Newton believed in alchemy, so that is no surprise.

Obviously you don’t understand Newton’s alchemy. No surprise there.

Nevertheless, the Dover court ruling still stated that ID is creationism in dusguise. IDists had the chance to state their case, and if the judge did not understand them, they can only blame themselves.

The judge didn’t listen to the IDists. He took what the anti-IDists said as the law without regards to reality.

There isn’t any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

Genetics. In particular of non-coding regions.

That’s not an objective test. Genetics can be accounted for via convergence and/or common design.

And I know plenty of IDists who patently do not understand biology, but that does not stop them.

I know plenty of evolutionists, like you, who patently do not understand biology or what is being debated.

What advances in astronomy has Gonzalez made? Read his publications.

teleologist
13 years ago

Obviously I am trying to highlight your hypocrisy to those with an open mind. Putting the word bigots in quotes does nothing to clarify your intentions. Furthermore, the mere fact that you used the word bigot to equate those students with Avalos’ well documented bigoted attack on Dr. Gonzales, who has done nothing to warrant that sort of atheist persecution, is in itself despicable.

teleologist
13 years ago

Let me be quite clear that those Christians are “bigots” not bigots (see if you can work out the difference, Tel).

Nice spin Pix. Let the readers know this is also typical of Pixie’s atheistic reflex to covering up his hypocrisy. It was clear what Pixie tried to do, which was to attempt to attack Christians as bigots as a response to me calling Avalos a bigot. I stand by my charge that Avalos is an atheistic bigot for his over the top persecution of Gonzales.

Or perhaps he has different standards if the situation is reverse

Actually no, I don’t have any double standards. If the situation was reversed and Christians were doing the despicable acts that Avalos has done, I would also called them bigots. In my other blog I have no qualms in taking other Christians to task, the objectivity that Pixie’s atheistic mind lacks.

One thing is crystal clear, that is, atheists like Pixie have a double standard that reflects his unfair atheistic ethics. If Pixie can call these Christians bigots he should have called Avalos a bigot a long time ago, instead of defending what Avalos did. Pixie is despicable when he supports this kind of behavior.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Let the readers of this blog please take notice of what Pixie just called this college and some of its Christian students, “bigots” .

Ah, I think you missed something here. See I used the term “bigots” in scare quotes. The idea was to draw a parallel between that and the incident in the OP. When you thought it was acceptable to use the term without qualification.

Let me be quite clear that those Christians are “bigots” not bigots (see if you can work out the difference, Tel).

Pixie has once again shown what a humongous hypocrite he is. Throughout this thread Pixie never referred to Avalos (an atheist like Pixie) as a bigot even though Avalos unjustly persecuted Gonzales — not for teaching ID, but merely for being sympathetic to ID. And yet, the first chance he gets, Pixie leaps at the chance to label a college and some Christian students as bigots.

The irony here is that I was highlighting hypocrisy! I guess I was too subtle.

Now Tel has used the term “bigot” for Avalos (where I would not). So I wonder if Tel can tell us if he thinks these Christians are bigots too, as they seem to be doing the same thing?

I guess when you are an atheist any attempt to silence you would mean that you are a bigot. On the other hand if you are an atheist persecuting a Christian, you would be justified. This is how despicable some atheists like Pixie have become. I must admit that it may not be Pixie’s fault. Atheism might have so twisted his once gifted mind into a bale of convoluted irrationalism to the point that he doesn’t even realize his own bigotry and illogic, which would explain his adherence to the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution.

So in Tel’s mind, I am “despicable” if I call those Cristians bigots, but not Avalos. I am intrigued to see if Tel is “despicable” too, if he thinks Avalos is bigots, but the Christians are not.

Or perhaps he has different standards if the situation is reverse (which, of course, was exactly the point of my last post).

teleologist
13 years ago

Let me just take this opportunity to thank Pixie for demonstrating once again what atheistic bigotry will do to a normally rational mind.

Let the readers of this blog please take notice of what Pixie just called this college and some of its Christian students, “bigots” . Pixie has once again shown what a humongous hypocrite he is. Throughout this thread Pixie never referred to Avalos (an atheist like Pixie) as a bigot even though Avalos unjustly persecuted Gonzales — not for teaching ID, but merely for being sympathetic to ID. And yet, the first chance he gets, Pixie leaps at the chance to label a college and some Christian students as bigots.

I guess when you are an atheist any attempt to silence you would mean that you are a bigot. On the other hand if you are an atheist persecuting a Christian, you would be justified. This is how despicable some atheists like Pixie have become. I must admit that it may not be Pixie’s fault. Atheism might have so twisted his once gifted mind into a bale of convoluted irrationalism to the point that he doesn’t even realize his own bigotry and illogic, which would explain his adherence to the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Whatever. People can read me comments and decide for themselves. You made your mind up a long time ago, I suspect.

However, Tel, I am still not clear why you feel justified in called Avalos a bigot, but not the Christians who got this other guy sacked. Sure, you are not going to change my opinion of you, but you might want to explain to other readers.

Warning: There was some irony in this post. See if you can spot it.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Tel, everyone can look up the thread and see I put “bigots” in scare quotes. I think my position is clear to anyone without your blinked vision. Perhaps you need to consider that beam in your own eye?

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Do they only let you out every couple of months, Joe?

To claim that one form of ID posits a supernatural designer is perverse.

Are you saying it is perverse to say there are two forms of ID or to claim that one form posits a supernatural designer?

Of course, there is really only one ID, which makes the two claims: life was designed; there is evidence life was designed. I was trying to go beyond that, to imagine ID was more akin to science, if you like, and that it offered up hypotheses with substance. Such hypotheses could be classified according to whether the supposed designer was supernatural or not. I really hope you are not disputing that ID allows a supernatural designer…

To try to claim that your scenario does not infinitely regress to the same point that ID regresses to, is also perverse.

Strange, I do not remember claiming that. But it was a long time ago; perhaps you can remind me.

Hmm, a search of the thread reveals that the word “regress” had not appeared previously, so apparently I did not try to claim that.

Therefore to hold ID to one standard all the while ignoring your position also leads to the same point, is a double-standard.

Is that the “regress” standard that I never mentioned?

Pix: The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general).

Joe: One can be an atheist and an IDist.

And one can be a theist and an ID opponent. Nevertheless, ID is intimately connected to religion. Have you heard of a guy called William Dembski? “Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

In the anti-ID scenario those laws of nature arose via sheer-dumb-luck. Duh.

Not so. Those laws could be designed by God. If there is no evidence for that design, then it is not ID. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists out there Joe.

It could be “sheer dumb luck”. But everything that happened since was not, it was following the laws of natural. Hmm, perhaps you consider any scenario like that to be “sheer dumb luck”; in that case, yes, that is what it is. But then “sheer dumb luck” is merely a glib label (much like “designed” in the ID, I suppose).

Obviously you don’t understand Newton’s alchemy. No surprise there.

I should hope that is indeed no surprise! Alchemy does not get taught nowadays in schools or universities, and is generally regarded as pseudo-science.

The judge didn’t listen to the IDists. He took what the anti-IDists said as the law without regards to reality.

This was a Christian judge, not listening to people who claim the universe was designed (well, those who turned up, Dembski kept well clear), preferring to listen only to the anti-IDists. Wonder why?

That’s not an objective test. Genetics can be accounted for via convergence and/or common design.

Common descent makes the prediction. It is falsified if the prediction fails, and the prediction can be tested objectvely.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Here is a news story about Christian “bigots” getting a college lecturer sacked.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070921/NEWS/70921045

A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.

Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.

“I’m just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master’s degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job,” Bitterman said.

Bitterman said called the story of Adam and Eve a “fairy tale” in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.

Bitterman said Linda Wild, vice president of academic affairs at Southwest, fired him over the telephone. Wild did not return telephone or email messages Friday. Bitterman said he can think of no other reason college officials would fire him and that Smith, the director of the campus, has previously sat in on his classes and complimented his work.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

I bet there aren’t any scientists looking into that. Darwinists don’t care because they already “know” that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

Sure they know that. And they know every other credible scientist knows it to. But they are still doing a lot of research into it. I did a PubMed search, and picked out a handfulof papers just from this year (cannot get the links through the anti-spam filter, do a search for “human chimp” at PubMed):

What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison.
How similar are amino acid mutations in human genetic diseases and evolution.
Evidence for a large double-cruciform DNA structure on the X chromosome of human and chimpanzee.
Chimpanzee locomotor energetics and the origin of human bipedalism
Analyses of human-chimpanzee orthologous gene pairs to explore evolutionary hypotheses of aging.
More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution
Non-random genomic divergence in repetitive sequences of human and chimpanzee in genes of different functional categories.

teleologist
13 years ago

It is a slippery slope when one tries to cover up his hypocrisy with further misleading statements. e.g. Pixie said,

Sadly Tel sees everything I post through creationist blinkers. My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8:

Does Pixie think the readers of this blog are that stupid? In comment #8 Pixie pointed to a link where Avalos lied (I’ve documented those lies in comment #11) in his response to DI and Pixie condone Avalos’ lies with his statement,

It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!

But wait, Pixie’s defense of Avalos is NOT limited to just comment #8 as he would like you to believe. He defended Avalos in comments #16, #19 and #20.

Pixie just cannot be trusted.

The OP showed why Avalos is an atheistic bigot, but to Pixie, Avalos is not bigoted when IDists are the targets of the attacks. However, Pixie has no problem labeling Christians “bigots” when his cherished atheistic beliefs are attacked.

IMO, Pixie is a hypocrite and his defense of Avalos and attack on Christians is despicable.

teleologist
13 years ago

It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!”
That “despiable” way I have of finding links to the other side of the story. Apparently that makes me a bigot in Tel’s book.

Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation. Pixie would like to deceive the reader that his citing of the link and using what Avalos said in that link to accuse DI and I of distortion. Regardless, if you agree with him or not, the fact is that he support fully what Avalos is saying. Since Avalos is an atheistic bigot as supported by the facts that I put forth in the OP, Pixie’s support of Avalos is therefore despicable.

Post #16: I quoted what another person – a Christian Associate Professor of Religion – said about Avalos. Again, just presenting the other side of the story. Tel really hates that sneaky, underhand, dishonest and just despicable behavior.

Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation Do I really need to remind everyone what Pixie said? Pixie: “My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8” This is sneaky. Let’s make this clear. Citing a link in defense of Avalos, is defending Avalos.

Post #19: This was a lengthy post responding to Joe, but here is the relevant bit at the end:

Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation Pixie: “My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8” That sure seems to be defending Avalos to me and it is not in post 8, is it?

Post #20: Here is post 20 in its entirety (no mention of Avalos):

Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation Pixie: “My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8” Remember this OP was to address the bigotry against Gonzales and Avalos was a chief persecutor. By attempting to cite a non-related case to discredit the injustice against Gonzales and downplay Avalos’ role in attacking Gonzales, Pixie in essence is using these links to support Avalos and attack Gonzales.

I don’t think there is any doubt to the reader of this thread what Pixie’s intentions were in these posts. Pixie is despicable to support Avalos attempt to silence an academic voice just because he is sympathetic to ID. He demonstrates his hypocrisy by citing a similar act by Christian and calling them “bigots” without doing the same for Avalos. Finally, he is now attempting to cover-up his hypocrisy by saying his ” defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8″ . Despicable.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Okay, I was wrong about it just being post #8. I made a mistake, and I will admit it. I had a quick skim though, and that was all I found. I apologise for that.

However, let us refer back to post #39, where Tel informs us all what the issue is:

Let’s stay focus on what the issue is. The OP showed why Avalos is an atheistic bigot, but to Pixie, Avalos is not bigoted when IDists are the targets of the attacks. However, Pixie has no problem labeling Christians “bigots” when his cherished atheistic beliefs are attacked.

Let us be quite clear that:
1. The OP does not show why Avalos is an atheist bigot. It does not even mention him.
2. I have never said Avalos is not a bigot. I do not know. Nor does Tel. Tel is basing his opinion on a single web page by the Discovery Institute (and his own prejudices I suggest).
3. I described a certain group of Christians as “bigots” in quotes. I was quoting Tel’s use of the term. Those Christians got a lecturer sacked, the same behaviour that Tel accuses Avalos of, and that Tel therefore accuses Avalos of bigotry. I do not know if those Christians are bigots or not. Nor does Tel.

In support of this accusation, Tel has found four posts in a thread with over 40 posts. One of those four does not even mention Avalos, but in Tel’s twisted logic, I am still a “despicable” atheist bigot for defendng Avalos in that post too.

In fact, my dispicable behaviour comes down to presenting the other side of the story.

Let us look at Tel’s behaviour. This thread has the title “Atheist Bigots Abound”. How about that for a prejudiced perspective, before we even read the thread. Right from the start Tel is linking atheism to bigotry.

What exactly was Avalos’ role in Gonzales failure for tenure? All we have to go on is a link in the OP to a web page (just one of seven links) by the Discovery Institute (DI). According to that page, Avalos organised an anti-ID petition, so the DI have an axe to grind with him. And let us not forget that Gonzales is a senior fellow at the DI Center for Science and Culture. So another reason why we might expect the DI article sto show some bias. But perhaps we should look at what the article actually says Avalos did with respect to Gonzales. Here is the article:

Iowa State Promotes Atheist Professor Who Equates Bible with Mein Kampf While Denying Tenure to ID Astronomer.

While Iowa State University denied tenure this spring to gifted pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, it turns out that it decided at the same time to promote to full professor outspoken atheist Hector Avalos, religious studies professor and faculty adviser to the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society.

Nothing so far to suggest Avalos was involved in the denial of tenure.

Avalos has led the charge against Gonzalez and intelligent design on ISU’s campus, helping to draft a 2005 petition denouncing intelligent design that ultimately was signed by more than 120 ISU faculty.

So two years before the denial of tenure, Avalos got up a petition against ID. Good for him, and I am happy to go on record as supporting that. Nothing to suggest he directly had a hand in denial of tenure, though the petition might have been an influencing factor (as could the Dover court case, the various antics of IDists and, well, the fact that ID is pseudo-science).

The rest of the article paints Avalos as a Bible-hating bigot, but makes no further attempt to link Avalos to the denial of tenure for Gonzales. I do not know if the portrait the DI paints is fair or not. Personally, I treat everything the DI says as suspect (of course I have my own prejudices, but I can find some very dodgy quotes by DI fellows if we want to go down that road), and so I gave a link presenting the other side of the story (here). Anyone is then free to read both sides and make up their own mind.

Tel does not care. He has decided long ago that atheists are bigots, and the DI web page bolsters that bigoted opinion. So in his mind, it must be true. And anyone daring to present an alternative side to the story, well, they are clearly atheist bigots too. Oh, and insincere and the rest.

And still he cannot say why Avalos is a bigot, but those Christians who got a lecturer sacked are not. I keep asking the question, and he keeps ignoring it. Why is that? I think we all know the answer. In Tel’s head, Avalos is because he is an atheist, those Christians are not because they are Christians.

Pix: Post #20: Here is post 20 in its entirety (no mention of Avalos):

Tel: Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation Pixie: “My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8” Remember this OP was to address the bigotry against Gonzales and Avalos was a chief persecutor. By attempting to cite a non-related case to discredit the injustice against Gonzales and downplay Avalos’ role in attacking Gonzales, Pixie in essence is using these links to support Avalos and attack Gonzales.

Right, so if I say there could be another explanation about why Gonzalez failed to get tenure, that makes me an atheuist bigot” you think? This is what I said in post #20:

With regards to the Gonzalez tenure incident, here is a blog post by a guy, Rob Knop, who is quitting academia because it is so hard getting tenure (hat tip Joy at Telic Thoughts).
The significant point is that this guy is not a creationist and not an IDist. Apparently it is hard to get tenure for everyone.

Really, Tel, you are grasping at straws when you are claiming I am defending Avalos in a post that does not mention him.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Oh, Tel, do we really have to go though it in minutae? Okay, here is what I did in all four of those posts.

Post #8: I said: “With regards to Te’s second link in the OP, Hector Avalos has responed here to the DI’s claims:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/avalos_responds.php
It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!

That “despiable” way I have of finding links to the other side of the story. Apparently that makes me a bigot in Tel’s book.

Post #16: I quoted what another person – a Christian Associate Professor of Religion – said about Avalos. Again, just presenting the other side of the story. Tel really hates that sneaky, underhand, dishonest and just despicable behavior.

Post #19: This was a lengthy post responding to Joe, but here is the relevant bit at the end:

Joe: Hector can hardly be called “ethical” . Just for his role against Gonzalez he is definitely not ethical.
Pix: Wht was his role against Gonzalez?
Joe: Could be because Hector is a liar who doesn’t care about the Bible. And I doubt that Hector even understands ID.
Pix: What makes you think Hector is a liar? And I know plenty of IDists who patently do not understand biology, but that does not stop them.
Joe: That completely missed the point. Gonzalez has done far more to advance the science of astronomy than Hector has to advance anything.
Pix: What makes you say that? They work in completely different fields, so it is not easy to compare their output, but Hector has a pretty impressive track record. What advances to astronomy has Gonzalez made?

So I challenge Joe to support his claims (he never did, by the way, his only respond: “Read his publications”). I also make the claim that Hector has a “pretty impressive [academic] track record”. We can argue that point, but it is not really relevant to whether he is a bigot or to whether I am supporting his bigotry (or whether Tel is a bigot making this thread attacking atheists).

Post #20: Here is post 20 in its entirety (no mention of Avalos):

With regards to the Gonzalez tenure incident, here is a blog post by a guy, Rob Knop, who is quitting academia because it is so hard getting tenure (hat tip Joy at Telic Thoughts).
The significant point is that this guy is not a creationist and not an IDist. Apparently it is hard to get tenure for everyone.

Now, Tel, you go through it and tell me: Where did I say Avalos was not a bigot? Please, have the decency and the honesty to actually quote me. You spent the time to go through a couple of dozen of my posts on this thread, so really I can only think of why reason why you would not quote me. You cannot find anything I actually said to support your accusation.

We both know that if you could, you would throw my words back in my face every chance you had. It is what you do. Instead, you are reduced to quibbling about which posts I mentioned Avalos in.

And still you cannot explain why Avalos is a bigot, but those Christians who got a lecturer sacked are not. What does that say about your honesty?

teleologist
13 years ago

An atheist like Pixie with his jaundice view of Christians and his blind support for other atheist bigots would continue to mock Christians. Isn’t it curious when you list the evidences for hypocrisy and bigotry of an atheist like Pixie that he would call that character assassination, but he has no problem with calling Christians “bigots” when an atheist mocks and insults them?

If we are talking specifically about the Gonzalez case, then I wonder what makes you think the commitee were all atheists. Are you aware that atheists are heavily outnumbered by Christians? I suspect less so in academia, but it would be dubious to assume the whole commitee was atheist.

This is the best that Pixie has to offer to dispute the case presented by DI? I doubt there are any Christians in this group.

It is worth remembering that many Christians are anti-ID (indeed, some creationists are anti-ID). Here is a web site of a Christian who is actively anti-ID.

That’s funny. I am an atheist who believes in a personal God and the literal reading of the Bible. Isn’t it interesting how Christians and atheists can call themselves whatever they want? Again, is this the best that Pixie has to offer to justify his like minded atheist bigots? Let us remember I am not criticizing Pixie as a Christian but as an atheist.

Is Gonzales merely “sympathetic to” ID?

Is this the best evidence that Pixie have to support his like minded atheist bigots? And is sympathetic antithetical with “strong support” or can they be complementary?

Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

And I shall answer “yes” . ID is not science. Mainstream ID, as promoted by the DI, is pseudo-science.

Well, now we can add Pixie into that list of bigots in Iowa. So the bigot Pixie would deny freedom and tenure to an accomplished professor and scientist just because he “strongly supports” ID, but has no connection with teaching and involving ID in his academic courses.

We also can clearly see the doubt standard of his bigotry that causes him to attack Gonzales and call Christians “bigots” for similar actions. Pixie is truly despicable.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation

Is it not curious that the brave and honest Christian has a web page dedicated to my character assassination on which I cannot respond? So let us talk about bigotry then…

Let’s get back to the OP. Do you think it is fair for a group of atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is sympathetic to ID?

Do you think it is fair for a group of Christans to persecute a lecturer for no other reason other than the fact that he was disrepectful of Christianity? You still cannot answer that one, can you Tel? You hide behind the fact that it was not in the OP, because you know it is just as bigoted (or not) as the Gonzalez case. Pathetic. Well, I am not shy of the hard questions, and I will attempt to answer yours.

If we are talking specifically about the Gonzalez case, then I wonder what makes you think the commitee were all atheists. Are you aware that atheists are heavily outnumbered by Christians? I suspect less so in academia, but it would be dubious to assume the whole commitee was atheist.

It is worth remembering that many Christians are anti-ID (indeed, some creationists are anti-ID). Here is a web site of a Christian who is actively anti-ID.

Is Gonzales merely “sympathetic to” ID? Or is he perhaps a staunch supporter? Let us see what the Discovery Institute says about him (and my apologises to him, I realise I have been spelling his name wrong). well, it turns out that Gonzalez is not just sympathetic to ID, but is a senior fellw of the most prominent ID organisation in the world, with recognised links to creationism. Oh, and he has written an ID book (and I would define an ID book as a book marketed at IDists as supporting ID).

So perhaps you have put a bit of spin in your question? I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

And I shall answer “yes”. ID is not science. Mainstream ID, as promoted by the DI, is pseudo-science. It has no specific hypotheses, it has no predictions, it has no one doing any research that anyone has ever seen. It has strong roots in creationism. The more prominent IDists are know to play fast and loose with the truth, in particular with quoting people out of context and then misrepresenting (Iand I think we all know how despicable you find that Tel). I have no reason to suppose Gonzalez is guilty of that, but other senior fellows of the DI certainly do. Gonzalez is associating himself with a guy who portrays a high court judge (a Christian, by the way, not an atheist) as a farting puppet just because ID lost a court case. If Gonzalez wants his name associated with the DI, then that is his choice. But in doing so he taints his name. And I can fully understand why no university would want the embarassment of having their name connected to the DI by even the most tenuous of links.

That said, we do not know the details. There may be other factors that were more or less important.

Their bigotry resulted in the university’s denial for his application for tenure. The OP was not exhaustive in providing the supporting evidence of this atheistic bigotry, but it should have been sufficient to make this case.

As far as I can see, the sentiment was anti-ID (and deservedly so), and could have been by Christians and atheists alike.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

An atheist like Pixie with his jaundice view of Christians and his blind support for other atheist bigots would continue to mock Christians. Isn’t it curious when you list the evidences for hypocrisy and bigotry of an atheist like Pixie that he would call that character assassination, but he has no problem with calling Christians “bigots” when an atheist mocks and insults them?

So there you go twisting my words to support your bigotry. I called those Christians bigots in quotes. I was quiting your use of the word. They seem to be doing the same as you claim Avalos did, and you called him a bigot. You continue to dodge the question about why that is.

This is the best that Pixie has to offer to dispute the case presented by DI? I doubt there are any Christians in this group.

I doubt there are any Christians in the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society either. Have you anything besides insinuation that any of those people were on the commitee that refused tenure to Gonzalez? I assume not, else you would have posted it. So is this the best you can do?

Pix: It is worth remembering that many Christians are anti-ID (indeed, some creationists are anti-ID). Here is a web site of a Christian who is actively anti-ID.

Tel: That’s funny. I am an atheist who believes in a personal God and the literal reading of the Bible. Isn’t it interesting how Christians and atheists can call themselves whatever they want? Again, is this the best that Pixie has to offer to justify his like minded atheist bigots? Let us remember I am not criticizing Pixie as a Christian but as an atheist.

Are you really claiming Edward Babinski is not a Christian? On what basis, he disagrees with you and agrees with me that ID is pseudo-science. Are you really claiming that all Christians are IDists?

Is this the best evidence that Pixie have to support his like minded atheist bigots? And is sympathetic antithetical with “strong support” or can they be complementary?

No, but it is good evidence of your attempt to spin. To say that Gonzalez is “sympathetic to” ID is hardly an honest representation of his connection to ID.

Well, now we can add Pixie into that list of bigots in Iowa. So the bigot Pixie would deny freedom and tenure to an accomplished professor and scientist just because he “strongly supports” ID, but has no connection with teaching and involving ID in his academic courses.

Let me assure you that my particular “bigotry” extends to all scientists in education who actively support alchemy, homeopathy, astrology, the supernatural or yogic flying as science.

teleologist
13 years ago

So there you go twisting my words to support your bigotry. I called those Christians bigots in quotes. I was quiting your use of the word. They seem to be doing the same as you claim Avalos did, and you called him a bigot. You continue to dodge the question about why that is.

Pixie can keep spinning this lie all day long and it won’t change the fact of what he said, that is, Here is a news story about Christian “bigots” getting a college lecturer sacked. Anyone can see in his comment that it makes no mention that he was referring to my use of the word. It is clear that his intention is to refer to those Christians as bigots while his atheistic double standard would absolve Avalos and him from any such criticism.

Have you anything besides insinuation that any of those people were on the commitee that refused tenure to Gonzalez?

Does Pixie have any evidence that those Christians in his were on the committee to fire that professor?

Are you really claiming Edward Babinski is not a Christian? On what basis

Are you saying I am not an atheist? On what basis, because I disagree with you on ID, think Darwinian evolution is pseudo-science and belief in a personal God?

No, but it is good evidence of your attempt to spin. To say that Gonzalez is “sympathetic to” ID is hardly an honest representation of his connection to ID.

Do you mean the way that you spin Do you understand what the difference is between “compatible with” and “identical to” ?
As for my use of those words, why do you go and debate it with MWDictionary.
Function: adjective
1 : existing or operating through an affinity, interdependence, or mutual association
2 a : appropriate to one’s mood, inclinations, or disposition b : marked by kindly or pleased appreciation <the biographer’s approach was sympathetic>
3 : given to, marked by, or arising from sympathy , compassion, friendliness, and sensitivity to others’ emotions <a sympathetic gesture>
4 : favorably inclined : APPROVING <not sympathetic to the idea>
5 a : showing empathy b : arousing sympathy or compassion <a sympathetic role in the play>
6 a : of or relating to the sympathetic nervous system b : mediated by or acting on the sympathetic nerves
7 : relating to musical tones produced by sympathetic vibration or to strings so tuned as to sound by sympathetic vibration

Function: transitive verb
1 : to endure bravely or quietly : BEAR
2 a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : ADVOCATE <supports fair play> (3) : to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes> b (1) : ASSIST, HELP <bombers supported the ground troops> (2) : to act with (a star actor) (3) : to bid in bridge so as to show support for c : to provide with substantiation : CORROBORATE <support an alibi>
3 a : to pay the costs of : MAINTAIN <support a family> b : to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of <the island could probably support three — A. B. C. Whipple> <support a habit>
4 a : to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for b : to maintain (a price) at a desired level by purchases or loans; also : to maintain the price of by purchases or loans
5 : to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage : COMFORT
6 : to keep (something) going

Go spin that Pixie.

Let me assure you that my particular “bigotry” extends to all scientists in education who actively support alchemy, homeopathy, astrology, the supernatural or yogic flying as science.

So you are a bigot with a long list of biases which also includes the rejection of tenure for professors who support ID and no freedom of speech for Christians who criticize atheists that make fun of their beliefs. Pixie is truly despicable.

The Pixie
The Pixie
13 years ago

Grow up, Tel. I clearly put bigot in quotes, and you even quoted those quotes, so it is a downright lie to say “Anyone can see in his comment that it makes no mention that he was referring to my use of the word.” Unless you do not know what quote marks indicate?

And still Tel cannot explain why Avalos is a bigot, but those Christians are not!

Does Pixie have any evidence that those Christians in his were on the committee to fire that professor?

Ooo, sneaky. The old shifting the burden of proof fallacy. I was not the one making the claim that it was specifically atheists who stopped tenure for Gonzalez.

Are you saying I am not an atheist? On what basis, because I disagree with you on ID, think Darwinian evolution is pseudo-science and belief in a personal God?

Did I say you were not an atheist? I cannot remember. But, Yes, I think you are not an atheist. I am not sure what you are getting at. Earlier you said “One of my best friends is an atheist.” The implication was that you are not.

Do you understand what the difference is between “compatible with” and “identical to” ?

I do, yes.

As for my use of those words, why do you go and debate it with MWDictionary.

Ah, that is the magic of spin. What you said is technically true, but rather misleading. Would you say PZ is sympathetic towards atheism? I doubt it, because that would spin it the wrong way.

So you are a bigot with a long list of biases which also includes the rejection of tenure for professors who support ID and no freedom of speech for Christians who criticize atheists that make fun of their beliefs.

It is not really a long list, it can be summed as:

1. scientists who actively promote pseudo-science working in academia
2. hypocrites who, for instance, complain about atheists stopping an IDist getting tenure but not about Christians getting a lecturer sacked

I have no problem with freedom of speech for Christians, even when they criticize atheists that make fun of their beliefs.