Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1…556557559561562…822

Comments

  • #16742
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is ridiculous. It is "plain discrimination" to think he is not suitably qualified for the job based on opinions he has publically expressed about science?
    ...THIS IS TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS ... the guy has run the Human Genome Project ... how much better qualified can you get!!!

    ...PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE TAXMAN DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE IN THE TAXES S/HE LEVIES, BASED ON PEOPLES WORLDVIEW ... and therfore NO DISCRIMINATION should be allowed in HOW THIS MONEY IS SPENT EITHER!!!!

    ...alternatively, IF public money is to ONLY be given to Atheists and Materialists ... then ONLY Atheists and Materialists should be taxed to pay it!!!!

    Wicknight wrote: »
    He is not being hired to work on a biology project, he has been hired to run the American NIH

    Ever watched the West Wing. Did you see the episode where Bartlet was about to nominate a Supreme Court Judge for the bench until they found out he didn't think Americans had a right to privacy as protected in the constitution. Bartlet with drew the nomination because he did not feel the guy was suitable for a position on the Supreme Court.

    Would that be discrimination?
    ... if the nomination was withdrawn based on the judges PERSONAL OPINIONS or Worldview rather than his qualifications or proven impartiality... that would CERTAINLY be discrimination on Religious grounds!!!! .... and an OUTRAGEOUS attack on free speech and the ability to hold an opinion and express it:eek:

    ...a judge should be evaluated on his/her impartiality, common sense and legal competence (in that order) ... and his/her personal political or religious opinions are IRRELEVANT!!!!:eek:

    ..their job is to fairly and impartially apply the law without fear or favour ... and IRRESPECTIVE of their personal opinions!!!
    .....and it is the job of the politicians to make the laws!!!

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Discrimination is when you unfavourable target a group based on characteristics they don't control.
    ...roll on the persecution of Christians, if this OUTRAGEOUS PRINCIPLE ever sees the light of day!!!!:(:eek:

    ... it is discrimination to target a group based on BOTH what they control (i.e. their opinions / religion) as well as what the don't control (like their race)!!!
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Collins views on matters of science do not fall into this. They are his views. No one is inferring his views based on his skin colour, his sex, or his religion.
    ...an OUTRAGEOUS attack on Prof Francis Collin's God-given right to hold an opinion on how God created us all ... and naked advocacy of sectarian discrimination of the worst possible kind!!!!

    ...where are all the Christians on this thread ... who (except for Jakkass and Wolfsbane) are standing idly by when these outrageous suggestions are being made!!!!
    ...any social justice pretentions ye may have had ... are all gone up in smoke!!!!

    ...if you don't care about other Christians like Prof Collins ... you should perhaps care about yourselves and your children!!!!

    ...and as Prof Colinis IS AN EVOLUTIONIST ... I would have thought that the Evolutionists would be outraged by this also!!!
    ...but instead we have Wicknight JUSTIFYING IT ... using the same tired old phrases that he uses to condemn my scientific qualifications .. to condemn the scientific qualifications of THE HEAD OF THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT!!!

    ...and these guys then turn around and ask Creation Scientists to submit their scientific papers to them for peer review!!!
    ... based on what I have heard and seen the only 'peer review' that would be given to such papers would be a hasty placement of them in the jax to be used as toilet paper by the said Evolutionists!!!!

    ... so ironically I find myself defending an EVOLUTIONIST against the the advocacy of discrimination against him by OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS!!!!

    ....the man should ALREADY have gotten a Nobel Prize!!!
    ... and you should all be ashamed of yourselves!!!!


  • #16743
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes Wolfsbane, listen to your qualified scientists :rolleyes:
    ...touché Wicknight !!!!


  • #16744
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Of course he is!

    Do you think because his views are religion based they are some how not important to his public role.

    Another load of tosh. His religious views are irrelevant. His religious views are about as likely to impact his position as an atheists views are to impact theirs. It actually throws me into disbelief to think that someone who is normally quite levelheaded would even try to justify this.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Would you put Fred Phelps as head of a State run gay rights organisation and then say Fred Phelps religious views are off limits to discussion?

    Francis Collins doesn't have anti-science views. Again, absolute nonsense.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    No, he is taking "pot shots" at him because Collins has publically expressed religious opinions that put him at odds with certain principles of science and biology, and he is now head of an organisation concerned with research in those areas.

    No, they don't put him at odds with science or biology. People can both have faith and be involved in science.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Oh don't be ridiculous. It is only discrimination if you assume his views based on his religion. Collins has already made public is views.

    If anyone is being ridiculous here, it's you. The fact that you cannot see this is something else! Collins is just as qualified as any atheist for the job.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I would love to get pointed to run a women's health organisation and then say all women are slags that create their own infections and should keep their legs shut, and then say that is my religious view so if you kick me out of this group that is clear discrimination based on my religion. :rolleyes:

    Are you not aware for one second that people can help out science, when they are on their work time. Then they can speak about their views on religion outside of that time.

    I mean there is a reason why I don't discuss faith at work. I'm on my employers time, and I am to respect that when I am at work. I'm sure Francis Collins is quite capable of doing the same.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is some what irrelevant because his position is not as a scientists, it is as an administrator.

    There is no justification for it. He can do this job as well as an atheist can.


  • #16745
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Another load of tosh. His religious views are irrelevant. His religious views are about as likely to impact his position as an atheists views are to impact theirs. It actually throws me into disbelief to think that someone who is normally quite levelheaded would even try to justify this.

    Francis Collins doesn't have anti-science views. Again, absolute nonsense.

    No, they don't put him at odds with science or biology. People can both have faith and be involved in science.

    If anyone is being ridiculous here, it's you. The fact that you cannot see this is something else! Collins is just as qualified as any atheist for the job.

    Are you not aware for one second that people can help out science, when they are on their work time. Then they can speak about their views on religion outside of that time.

    I mean there is a reason why I don't discuss faith at work. I'm on my employers time, and I am to respect that when I am at work. I'm sure Francis Collins is quite capable of doing the same.

    There is no justification for it. He can do this job as well as an atheist can.
    ...ALL VERY VALID POINTS, Jakkass!!!

    ... I'm proud to count myself alongside Professor Collins ... even thought he is an Evolutionist and I am a Creation Scientist ... when we both are told by the Atheists that we are 'anti-science' ... when he heads the Human Genome Project ... and I ... eh em ... I hope you understand ... that I have to leave it at that!!!!!:(:eek:

    ...I completely disagree with many of Prof Collins' theological and scientific opinions ... but I will not countenace the advocacy of gross religious discrimination against him....for evil to prevail, all it takes is for good men to remain SILENT!!!!


  • #16746
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    This is the biopic of Prof Collins that Wicknight wants President Obama to sack ... because he isn't a 'proper' scientist!!!!:(:eek:

    Professor Francis Collins

    Born in 1950, he grew up on a farm in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia. He did not attend school until the age of ten, but thanks to his mother's teaching was by then already two years ahead of his peers. He studied chemistry at the University of Virginia and went on to do a PhD in physical chemistry at Yale. There he first came across DNA, and almost overnight decided to switch to biomedical science.

    He trained as a doctor at the University of North Carolina where he became aware of the problem of inherited diseases, and of the tremendous challenge they posed for science. In 1981 he returned to Yale as a research fellow in human medical genetics.

    At that time, finding genes was a matter of identifying chromosomal markers that were inherited with the disease, and then 'walking' from one piece of DNA to the next in the hope of stumbling on the gene of interest. It was painfully slow. Collins developed a more rapid method that made it possible to 'jump' along larger stretches of DNA; later, he coined the term 'positional cloning' to describe this process of finding a disease gene by its map position.

    In 1984 he moved to the University of Michigan, where he collaborated on research that in 1989 pinpointed the gene for cystic fibrosis. He soon went on to contribute to the discovery of other disease genes, including that for Huntington's disease.

    The Human Genome Project had been launched in 1990 with James Watson at its head; but in 1992 Watson left after differences with the National Institutes of Health director. A year later, Francis Collins accepted an invitation to step into the breach. Unwilling to give up lab work entirely for administration, he quickly established an intramural programme of genome research at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). But in the years between 1994 and 2000, much of his time and energy was given over to marshalling the international team of competitive, ambitious and highly individual scientists who had undertaken to read and assemble the three billion bases of human DNA.

    The project, he told CNN, was "more significant than going to the Moon". It was ultimately completed in 2003, ahead of schedule and under budget.

    His diplomatic skills were further challenged in 1998, when Craig Venter launched Celera Genomics with the aim of undertaking the job as a private enterprise. The 'race' between the two projects threw Collins into the media spotlight, where he seized the opportunity to champion the importance of keeping genomic information in the public domain. A committed Christian since his days as a medical student, Collins has frequently voiced concerns about the ethical and legal implications of genetic testing, opposing discrimination on genetic grounds. Having seen for himself the huge health gap between rich and poor countries through his work at a mission hospital in Nigeria, he is also concerned that the benefits of genome research should be extended to all.

    With the genome sequence complete, NHGRI is now supporting another international initiative, the International Haplotype Mapping Consortium, which will speed up the identification of genetic variants that contribute to disease.

    Meanwhile in his own lab, Collins is working to discover the genes that contribute to adult onset diabetes, a huge and growing health problem for both developed and developing countries. His work as a teacher, a researcher and an administrator has won him numerous national and international awards and honours.


  • Advertisement
  • #16747
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Another load of tosh. His religious views are irrelevant. His religious views are about as likely to impact his position as an atheists views are to impact theirs.

    I wouldn't put an atheist who expressed his opinion about science and biology in his position either.

    What part of this are you not understanding. He expressed opinions about science and scientific research that are quite contrary to the principles of science and scientific research. He was put in charge of funding of scientific research. Harris objected.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Francis Collins doesn't have anti-science views.
    Have you read Harris' piece in the New York Times?

    But you didn't answer my question. Do you think it is ok to consider someone inappropiate for a position if you base that on views that are religious, ie Fred Phelp not running a GLBS reach out program.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, they don't put him at odds with science or biology. People can both have faith and be involved in science.

    They can, if they are prepared to let the science stand as it rather than inject into the science a religious position which is what Collins does.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Are you not aware for one second that people can help out science, when they are on their work time. Then they can speak about their views on religion outside of that time.

    Collins doesn't differentiate the two. Again have you read Harris' piece, specifically the lecture he gave at Berkeley?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I mean there is a reason why I don't discuss faith at work. I'm on my employers time, and I am to respect that when I am at work. I'm sure Francis Collins is quite capable of doing the same.

    And if he isn't do you think that would be cause for concern ... ?


  • #16748
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ...THIS IS TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS ... the guy has run the Human Genome Project ... how much better qualified can you get!!!

    What are you talking about? Running the Human Genome Project does not qualify him for this job even if you ignore all this stuff about religion and science.

    Do you even know what the Human Genome Project was JC?
    J C wrote: »
    ...PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE TAXMAN DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE IN THE TAXES S/HE LEVIES, BASED ON PEOPLES WORLDVIEW ... and therfore NO DISCRIMINATION should be allowed in HOW THIS MONEY IS SPENT EITHER!!!!

    That is exactly the point, religious ideology has no place in deciding scientific funding.
    J C wrote: »
    ...alternatively, IF public money is to ONLY be given to Atheists and Materialists ... then ONLY Atheists and Materialists should be taxed to pay it!!!!

    Yeah think about that the next time you turn up to a hospital wanting to be saved by this modern medicine thing we have JC, a product of materialistic science such as evolutionary theory.


  • #16749
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I wouldn't put an atheist who expressed his opinion about science and biology in his position either.

    What part of this are you not understanding. He expressed opinions about science and scientific research that are quite contrary to the principles of science and scientific research. He was put in charge of funding of scientific research. Harris objected.

    Have you read Harris' piece in the New York Times?

    But you didn't answer my question. Do you think it is ok to consider someone inappropiate for a position if you base that on views that are religious, ie Fred Phelp not running a GLBS reach out program.

    They can, if they are prepared to let the science stand as it rather than inject into the science a religious position which is what Collins does.

    Collins doesn't differentiate the two. Again have you read Harris' piece, specifically the lecture he gave at Berkeley?

    And if he isn't do you think that would be cause for concern ... ?
    ... a load of dangerous self-serving baloney!!!!

    ...the Atheists are JUST AS COMMITTED to their Anti-God Worldview as Christians are to their Theistic Worldview ... they are therefore BOTH people of FAITH ... in the absence or the existence of God!!!

    ... so if you are going to advocate religious discrimination ... then I would suggest that you start with youself and your Atheistic colleagues FIRST!!!!

    ....and when you have ALL resigned your jobs, you can then start lecturing us about our responsibilities!!!:(:eek:


  • #16750
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I wouldn't put an atheist who expressed his opinion about science and biology in his position either.

    One can perform a role with an opinion while remaining impartial.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    What part of this are you not understanding. He expressed opinions about science and scientific research that are quite contrary to the principles of science and scientific research. He was put in charge of funding of scientific research. Harris objected.

    Is Harris even involved in science?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Have you read Harris' piece in the New York Times?

    I'm basing my view on the commentary that wolfsbane linked to.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    But you didn't answer my question. Do you think it is ok to consider someone inappropiate for a position if you base that on views that are religious, ie Fred Phelp not running a GLBS reach out program.

    It's a strawman. We have no evidence that Francis Collins cannot be impartial in such a role. Therefore there is no reason to exclude Francis Collins from such a position.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    They can, if they are prepared to let the science stand as it rather than inject into the science a religious position which is what Collins does.

    Irrelevant. One can serve impartially while working for their employer. Outside of that time one can express themselves however they wish.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Collins doesn't differentiate the two. Again have you read Harris' piece, specifically the lecture he gave at Berkeley?

    I'm basing my view on the commentary wolfsbane gave. If you have links to either of the other sources I'll rethink my position while reading them.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    And if he isn't do you think that would be cause for concern ... ?

    I have no cause of concern for a brilliant scientist taking such a role. It is you who is jumping to such absurd assumptions such as since he expresses religious views and sciences compatibility with them that he will be biased towards his job. Nothing but tosh!

    I guess people should be sacked from their jobs because they express religious views outside of working hours?


  • #16751
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Wicknight wrote: »

    Yeah think about that the next time you turn up to a hospital wanting to be saved by this modern medicine thing we have JC, a product of materialistic science such as evolutionary theory.

    picard-facepalm.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #16752
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    ...the observable evidence actually DOES support Intelligent Design unequivocally and it equally DISPROVES Materialistic Evolution ... and that is why the Materialists are running scared!!!!:D

    Yeah, uh, can we please get back to this debate about the evidence.. not whether we think someone is worthy of a post by PUSA, personally I think he shouldn't get it because he wears glasses:rolleyes:

    I believe JC was explaining the evidence for ID before the train derailed ...


  • #16753
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    What are you talking about? Running the Human Genome Project does not qualify him for this job even if you ignore all this stuff about religion and science.

    Do you even know what the Human Genome Project was JC?

    That is exactly the point, religious ideology has no place in deciding scientific funding.

    Yeah think about that the next time you turn up to a hospital wanting to be saved by this modern medicine thing we have JC, a product of materialistic science such as evolutionary theory.
    ...You are all over the shop!!!

    ...one minute you agree that there should be no religious discrimination ... and the next minute you turn around and ADVOCATE it!!!!!:(:eek:

    ... tProf Collins is an eminently qualified Medical Doctor, as well as having post grad qualifications in Physical Chemistry and Medical Genetics. He is an able administrator, a fact attested to by his completion of the gargantuan Human Genome Project ahead of schedule and within budget.

    He is even a ROCK SOLID EVOLUTIONIST ... and The New Scientist has applauded his appointment:-
    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/does-nih-pick-signal-detente-i.html

    ...all that is wrong with him, that apparently justifies his sacking in your eyes, and the eyes of some Campaigning Atheists, is that he is a Born Again Christian ... and he makes no secret of this fact!!!!

    ...I shudder to think what would happen me if ye ever get your hands on me ... when you reserve such vitrol for a ROCK SOLID EVOLUTIONIST whose only offence is that he has said publicly that he is a Christian!!!

    ...I guess that we can NOW add Jesus Christ to Creation Science ... as a love that dare not speak it's name!!!:(:eek:


  • #16754
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Yeah, uh, can we please get back to this debate about the evidence.. not whether we think someone is worthy of a post by PUSA, personally I think he shouldn't get it because he wears glasses:rolleyes:

    I believe JC was explaining the evidence for ID before the train derailed ...
    ... challenging the advocacy of unmerited discrimination is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT that repeating ad nauseum the evidence for Intelligent Design ... which is right under their noses ... if anybody cares to look!!!:eek:

    ....what are your views on this proposed injustice ... or are you going to joint the rest, and leave your morals at home on this issue!!!


  • #16755
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    One can perform a role with an opinion while remaining impartial.

    They can. The question is will they. I could mod the Christian forum impartially, any of the Christians want to find out if I would?

    Harris has raises a very valid objection to this appointment. The idea that you cannot object to appointments to public organisations based on what the appointee believes if the belief is religious is frankly ridiculous.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Is Harris even involved in science?
    Sam Harris has a degree in philosophy from Standford and is in the middle of a PhD in Neuroscience, so yeah he is involved, not that this particularly matters.

    He is not just objecting for the fun of it.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm basing my view on the commentary that wolfsbane linked to.
    Have you read the Sam Harris article?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's a strawman. We have no evidence that Francis Collins cannot be impartial in such a role.

    What do you consider "evidence"? Are you discounting his already public remarks on science and religion?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm basing my view on the commentary wolfsbane gave. If you have links to either of the other sources I'll rethink my position while reading them.

    Well how about you start with the Sam Harris article itself (link is in the first sentence of Wolfsbane's article), the article that you have dismissed as discrimination.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I guess people should be sacked from their jobs because they express religious views outside of working hours?

    No, people should not be appointed to positions where they are responsible for scientific funding when they have publicly put forward a position that runs contrary to the impartiality of science.


  • #16756
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    ... challenging the advocacy of unmerited discrimination is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT that repeating ad nauseum the evidence for Intelligent Design ... which is right under your nose ... if anybody cares to look!!!:eek:

    K then, I understand ..principles..

    Em, I gonna grab some popcorn and see how this one pans out.


  • #16757
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Wicknight

    Yeah think about that the next time you turn up to a hospital wanting to be saved by this modern medicine thing we have JC, a product of materialistic science such as evolutionary theory.
    ... to that piece of baloney I will say three things:-

    1. I have contributed to Human Health and welfare all my life and the least that I would expect is to be, in turn, treated in hospital, if I were sick.

    2. I am a taxpayer AND a member of VHI and I have cash ... and if that doesn't entitle me a hospital bed if I need it I will emigrate to somewhere where I will get one!!!

    3. I herewith give you the following quote from Prof. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University & Member of the US National Academy of Sciences.
    "None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution - it provided no support.”

    ... I think that it is 'facepalming' time for YOU, Wicknight!!!:eek:

    picard-facepalm.jpg


  • #16758
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ...You are all over the shop!!!

    ...one minute you agree that there should be no religious discrimination ... and the next minute you turn around and ADVOCATE it!!!!!:(:eek:

    Do you guys actually know what the word discrimination means?

    When has it been discrimination to not appoint someone to a position when you feel they will not do a good job. Because I got to tell you, I'm looking forward to suing all those employers over the years who did not give me the job I was going for just because I was not the correct person for it. Think of the money!

    In fact screw that, lets take the case of the Nazi holocaust denier who was refused the position at the holocaust museum. That was a clear and blatant cause of discrimination based solely on what he believed. How could they possibly know that he was not going to do the job properly!
    J C wrote: »
    He is even a ROCK SOLID EVOLUTIONIST ... and The New Scientist has applauded his appointment:-
    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/does-nih-pick-signal-detente-i.html

    Oh well then, why didn't you say so. If he is an evolutionists surely I should be sticking with him shouldn't I. We do all have a great conspiracy after all to keep up.
    J C wrote: »
    ...all that is wrong with him, that apparently justifies his sacking in your eyes, and the eyes of some Campaigning Atheists, is that he is a Born Again Christian ... and he makes no secret of this fact!!!!

    Yes that and .. wait, what was the other thing ...tip of my tongue ... his expressed views on the nature of science that run contrary to the impartiality of science. Yeah but mainly the Christian thing. I hate those Born Agains.
    J C wrote: »
    ...I shudder to think what would happen me if ye ever get your hands on me ... when you reserve such vitrol for a ROCK SOLID EVOLUTIONIST whose only offence is that he has said publicly that he is a Christian!!!

    Well thankfully you aren't a qualified scientist, so you don't have to worry about being appointed to any position of importance.


  • #16759
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    ....what are your views on this proposed injustice ... or are you going to joint the rest, and leave your morals at home on this issue!!!


    Ahem,
    Sorry missed that part in your post first time round.
    Ehh, he's a decorated scientist no two ways about it, so long as he focuses on the science I'm ok. I do find it worrying that he is one of those rare breed of scientists that must link scriptures with his work. But as already mentioned as long as he employs fair rules of science, then I see no reason to object. We can't condemn someone before they commit the crime. Though rest assured if this particular crime is committed all hell will break lose. It will cause a huge upset and throw the whole science vs religion into the spotlight under the worst possible conditions.
    I personally wish him will, and hope that he does not screw it up, because I shudder to think of the consequences that may occur.


  • #16760
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    3. I herewith give you the following quote from Prof. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University & Member of the US National Academy of Sciences.
    "None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution - it provided no support.”

    I assume that is a different Prof. Philip Skell from the intelligent design chemist who likes to lie about his qualifications in bio-chemistry through the Discovery Institute?

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/the-unexpected.html

    Because quoting a chemist about how biologists are wrong, that would be a bit dumb. Quoting one who pretends to be something he isn't to add weight to his unsupported assertions in a field he doesn't work in. That would be really stupid.


  • #16761
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you guys actually know what the word discrimination means?

    When has it been discrimination to not appoint someone to a position when you feel they will not do a good job. Because I got to tell you, I'm looking forward to suing all those employers over the years who did not give me the job I was going for just because I was not the correct person for it. Think of the money!
    ... you WOULD succeed IF they did discriminate against you PURELY on your religious beliefs!!!

    Wicknight wrote: »
    In fact screw that, lets take the case of the Nazi holocaust denier who was refused the position at the holocaust museum. That was a clear and blatant cause of discrimination based solely on what he believed. How could they possibly know that he was not going to do the job properly!
    ....are you saying that Nazism is a RELIGION????
    ...or are you suggesting that being a Born Again Christian, like Prof Collins, is equivalent to being a Nazi ... as far as you are concerned????

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Oh well then, why didn't you say so. If he is an evolutionists surely I should be sticking with him shouldn't I. We do all have a great conspiracy after all to keep up.
    ... I didn't know there was a 'great evolutionist conspiracy' ... but if you say it exists ... it obviously doesn't extend to Christian Evolutionists!!!


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes that and .. wait, what was the other thing ...tip of my tongue ... his expressed views on the nature of science that run contrary to the impartiality of science. Yeah but mainly the Christian thing. I hate those Born Agains.
    ... seems you DO!!!!

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well thankfully you aren't a qualified scientist, so you don't have to worry about being appointed to any position of importance.
    ... yes I'm not qualified IN YOUR MIND ... just like Prof Francis Collins isn't qualified EITHER!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #16762
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Having consulted the article, I think his views are still unjustified. That lecture I assume was a visiting lecture where he was invited to discuss his views. That wasn't a part of his official work.

    He's saying basically because he is a scientist, and he is a Christian the job is not for him.

    Although Francis Collins has served years as a doctor, and he has served years in biological research. This man couldn't be better for it irrespective of his beliefs.

    Harris' objections are nothing more than veiled bigotry. His objection is explaining morals by religion, when will Francis Collins ever have to do that in this position? Infact he never had to he did it on invitation.
    Francis Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination

    Sam Harris lives in a society that doesn't discriminate based on religion. He needs to deal with it.
    Dr. Collins has written that “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” and that “the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.”

    Big deal? It sounds like veiled bigotry to me.


  • #16763
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I assume that is a different Prof. Philip Skell from the intelligent design chemist who likes to lie about his qualifications in bio-chemistry through the Discovery Institute?

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/the-unexpected.html

    Because quoting a chemist about how biologists are wrong, that would be a bit dumb. Quoting one who pretends to be something he isn't to add weight to his unsupported assertions in a field he doesn't work in. That would be really stupid.
    ....I see, you are arguing over a gnat ... and swallowing a camel ... Wicknight!!!!


  • #16764
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Ahem,
    Sorry missed that part in your post first time round.
    Ehh, he's a decorated scientist no two ways about it, so long as he focuses on the science I'm ok. I do find it worrying that he is one of those rare breed of scientists that must link scriptures with his work. But as already mentioned as long as he employs fair rules of science, then I see no reason to object. We can't condemn someone before they commit the crime. Though rest assured if this particular crime is committed all hell will break lose. It will cause a huge upset and throw the whole science vs religion into the spotlight under the worst possible conditions.
    I personally wish him will, and hope that he does not screw it up, because I shudder to think of the consequences that may occur.
    ....which is a very long-winded way of saying that it is some kind of scientific CRIME to profess yourself to be a Christian!!!
    ... are all Evolutionist Christians READING THIS ... it applies to YOU too!!!!!:(:eek:

    ... please note that 'all hell will break loose' if he were to pronounce a scriptural passage in the presence of an Atheist ... but if he were to equate Christian Education with child abuse to a Christian ... he would be proclaimed a HERO!!!


  • #16765
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sam Harris lives in a society that doesn't discriminate based on religion. He needs to deal with it.
    ...DOES he???


  • #16766
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    ....which is a very long-winded way of saying that it is some kind of scientific CRIME to profess yourself to be a Christian!!!
    ... are all you smug, pseudo-liberal, Evolutionist Christians READING THIS ... it applies to YOU!!!!!:(:eek:

    No no no, please don't tie with me the anti religion stance..pleaseeee

    The 'crime' (and tbh I don't see him committing one) is merely that he refuses to work 'objectively' and if in the most unlikely circumstance that a situation would arise where his faith may be damaged by a truth discovered, he does attempts to disrupt that experiment.

    No it isn't, a crime to be a scientist and a Christian. If an atheist stopped an experiment that went against his/her own beliefs then I would equally object to that.

    The principle of fair and honest science must be upheld at all times. This means all biases regardless how small must be put in a corner and the truth should be followed.


  • #16767
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    ....
    ... please note that 'all hell will break loose' if he were to pronounce a scriptural passage in the presence of an Atheist ... but if he were to equate Christianity with child abuse to a Christian ... he would be proclaimed a HERO!!!

    No it wouldn't all hell would break loose because of him violating a principle of science, and being sacked in the process. Just imagine how much disarray that would cause between non religious scientists and religious ones. Not to mention the public image. I certainly do not want that, that's what I was shuddering to think about.

    You asked my honest opinion, and I gave it, that part about the scriptures was only my personal concern that he links his life to an ancient text... and he looks for prove of it in his work...that's a bias.

    I do not go looking for proof of what I believe, I try to be as impartial as possible.
    That is the principle which a scientist is expected to uphold.
    Throw me a bone here, I'm willing to openly listen to your stance on creationism.


    Also if he was to equate Christianity to Child Abuse, he would have been disillusioned by the actions of very small minority and would most certainly not be granted HERO status among ANYONE.


  • #16768
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    No no no, please don't tie with me the anti religion stance..pleaseeee

    The 'crime' (and tbh I don't see him committing one) is merely that he refuses to work 'objectively' and if in the most unlikely circumstance that a situation would arise where his faith may be damaged by a truth discovered, he does attempts to disrupt that experiment.

    No it isn't, a crime to be a scientist and a Christian. If an atheist stopped an experiment that went against his/her own beliefs then I would equally object to that.

    The principle of fair and honest science must be upheld at all times. This means all biases regardless how small must be put in a corner and the truth should be followed.
    ...it's the National Institutes of Health that he is being appointed to as Director ... which is an ADMINISTRATIVE post ... where he won't be doing experimental research himself!!!

    ...anyway HOW would a Christian, even if he wanted to, hide or corrupt experimental data that will be peer reviewed and produced in collaboration with other scientists?????


  • #16769
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Having consulted the article, I think his views are still unjustified. That lecture I assume was a visiting lecture where he was invited to discuss his views. That wasn't a part of his official work.

    At the time he didn't have official work.

    You can only assess a persons qualification for a job based on their passed record. This was a public engagement where Collins made no qualms about stating this position of his.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    He's saying basically because he is a scientist, and he is a Christian the job is not for him.

    No, he is saying because he is a scientist who has let his Christian supernaturalism impinge upon his scientific view of the world the job is not for him.

    Having a preconceived notion of how certain sciences, such as neurology, will work based on a religious belief is non-scientific. If you are going to manage science you have to keep these things separate. Collins doesn't, nor does he seem to want to. So the job is not for him.

    You will notice that the comments that sparked Harris' concern dealt with neurology, a subject close to Harris' heart
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Although Francis Collins has served years as a doctor, and he has served years in biological research. This man couldn't be better for it irrespective of his beliefs.
    What do you mean irrespective of his beliefs.

    That is ridiculous. Your argument is that we should ignore what he believes, ignore who he is, and assume he will do a good job anyway.

    Why hire him then? If we ignore who he is and what he believes surely anyone could do the job.

    He is no longer in a position where his beliefs do not matter.


  • #16770
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yeah but mainly the Christian thing. I hate those Born Agains.

    Pout.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #16771
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ....I see, you are arguing over a gnat ... and swallowing a camel ... Wicknight!!!!

    I see you are quote mining Creationist sites again without bothering to do your own research JC :rolleyes:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement