Religious discrimination

Originally posted by amannion
Wait a minute, your competency at the job IS in question here.
The employers believe that you are NOT competent if you don't have the particular qualification - in this case, membership of a particular religion. Therefore, you're disqualified from the position.

exactly what I was trying to say, but more succinct.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I believe the problem is more down to the fact that what he was trying to publish was not science. ID is what is known as "speculation".

Thank you sir, for your brilliant insight -- you make L Ron Hubbard look like a veritable Aristotle.

Your off-hand rejection of a matter in which you probably only read the first paragraph is indicative of just how deeply this scientific bigotry is ingrained into the "intellectual community".

Of course we all know that Darwiniacs such as you can speculate all they want under the mantle of "naturalistic evolution" and garner accolades and critical acclaim like it's going out of fashion.

Which idiot claimed that science should go where the evidence leads? Who said scientists should keep an open mind?

Thank you again, sir, for beautifully proving my point: you are a closed-minded bigot. You quake with rage when a "religious" academic institution discriminates due to the religious conviction of its employees (you being non-religious), but when I give you the case of it happening in the reverse (in this case a religious scientist is discriminated against) you dismiss it as a case of scientific purification? And you consider your views balanced and unbiased? Do you even have a clue?

Originally posted by Halitose
Thank you sir, for your brilliant insight -- you make L Ron Hubbard look like a veritable Aristotle.

Er, welcome back, Hal.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Er, welcome back, Hal.

😀

Thanks Bosse.

Originally posted by whiterose
You definitely do have a choice in what you believe, and I think the god squad would agree with me. Otherwise why would they be trying to convince people to CHOOSE to be saved?

You cannot choose your beliefs. How can people choose to be saved if they don't believe in God? You are assuming they already believe in the options you are giving and they must just choose one. Could you choose to be atheist?

Your equating the word 'evangelical' with not accepting evolution is wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You cannot choose your beliefs. How can people choose to be saved if they don't believe in God? You are assuming they already believe in the options you are giving and they must just choose one. Could you choose to be atheist?

Your equating the word 'evangelical' with not accepting evolution is wrong.

How else do you get a belief if you don't choose it?
Is it given to us in our breakfast cereal?

I don't recall picking up my atheism from my cornflakes ... no, I'm pretty sure I chose atheism.

Originally posted by amannion
How else do you get a belief if you don't choose it?
Is it given to us in our breakfast cereal?

I don't recall picking up my atheism from my cornflakes ... no, I'm pretty sure I chose atheism.

I think that you can chose atheism, like you, I did.

Also, you can chose religion BUT a high proportion of believers do indeed get it with their breakfast cereal.

Originally posted by Halitose
Thank you sir, for your brilliant insight -- you make L Ron Hubbard look like a veritable Aristotle.

Your off-hand rejection of a matter in which you probably only read the first paragraph is indicative of just how deeply this scientific bigotry is ingrained into the "intellectual community".

Of course we all know that Darwiniacs such as you can spe ...[text shortened]... purification? And you consider your views balanced and unbiased? Do you even have a clue?

You really are a twit.

I actually read most of the article. I was amazed at how biased the reporter was. He actually seemed to believe that ID is an acceptable substitute for Darwinian evolution. You can claim it is, if you like, but it's continuously roundly rejected as a "scientific alternative" by, well, every court that's ever trialed a case on it, and, of course, scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences (and the AAAS). The long and short of claiming "design" is that it just isn't scientific. I never read the Meyer paper, although I might. I doubt I would have let it through the review process, although cannot speak for the editor's choice (and remember it is just that) of referees.

Feel free to blast me with your idiotic ad homs, but just remember that everyone can see you for what you really are.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You really are a twit.

I actually read most of the article. I was amazed at how biased the reporter was. He actually seemed to believe that ID is an acceptable substitute for Darwinian evolution. You can claim it is, if you like, but it's continuously roundly rejected as a "scientific alternative" by, well, every court that's ever trialed a case o ...[text shortened]... tic ad homs, but just remember that everyone can see you for what you really are.

You really are a twit.

The rapier-like cut of your wit has me impaled. I bleed.

I was amazed at how biased the reporter was.

Of course -- anyone who doesn't denounce ID folk as tent-dwelling, bible-thumping, flat-earth-believing, NASCAR-racing miscreants must be a ID mole who wants to subvert the impressionable minds of our adorable children.

He actually seemed to believe that ID is an acceptable substitute for Darwinian evolution.

To me he just seemed to give the other side of the story -- like any good journalist should -- but what do I know? ID'ers should be bashed and exposed at every mention of that heretical word!

On a more serious note, I do believe you’re misrepresenting ID: it was never meant to “substitute” Darwinian evolution (hence the absence of my posting in the “alternatives to evolution” thread), but rather to elucidate certain facets where Darwinian evolution falls short in providing a satisfactory explanation for observable phenomenon.

You can claim it is, if you like, but it's continuously roundly rejected as a "scientific alternative" by, well, every court that's ever trialed a case on it, and, of course, scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences (and the AAAS).

If the Smithsonian's juvenile reaction is anything to go on, I wouldn't place my blind faith in the infallibility of "scientific institutions".

It's strange -- first ID was denounced as unscientific because it had never been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now they refuse to publish it in the journal "cuz it's unscientific". Oh well.

The long and short of claiming "design" is that it just isn't scientific.

Grounds? For example, which part of Behe's “Irreducible Complexity” postulation is unscientific?

Originally posted by Halitose
Grounds? For example, which part of Behe's “Irreducible Complexity” postulation is unscientific?

You guys and your interminable discussions. What stamina!

Could you tell me why the ID hypothesis should be considered a serious contribution to science? I'm only interested in your thoughts so no links or what-what please, just relax and tell me your opinion. No need to be defensive, I have absolutely no axe to grind here.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Sorry Amannion, but your example isn't valid.

Your hypothetical mining company wants to hire a geophysicist. They have two equally qualified, equally skilled applicants. They hire the white one.

Or worse. They have two applicants. One is far more qualified and experienced. And Black. They hire the white one.

Should that be allowed?

Yes

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Try telling that to Lucifershammer or another of the God squad. All religions claim to be the only true one.

Including the church of environmentalism, with it's horde of fanatical greenieness disciples out to save us from ourselves. The comparisons to other crackpot religions all too obvious.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You guys and your interminable discussions. What stamina!

Could you tell me why the ID hypothesis should be considered a serious contribution to science? I'm only interested in your thoughts so no links or what-what please, just relax and tell me your opinion. No need to be defensive, I have absolutely no axe to grind here.

You guys and your interminable discussions. What stamina!

😀 I get tired of it; the last respite being case in point.

Could you tell me why the ID hypothesis should be considered a serious contribution to science?

IMO it gives a scientifically sound (Dembski's "Specified Complexity" criterion) method for the detection of intelligent agency in nature. The fringe sciences already use it, e.g. the SETI program and forensics. I see no reason, other than axiomatic preclusion, not to expand this into the natural sciences.

I have absolutely no axe to grind here.

You never have... which is more than can be said for most here. 🙂

Originally posted by Halitose
IMO it gives a scientifically sound (Dembski's "Specified Complexity" criterion) method for the detection of intelligent agency in nature. The fringe sciences already use it, e.g. the SETI program and forensics. I see no reason, other than axiomatic preclusion, not to expand this into the natural sciences.

Why not start a thread from this specific viewpoint? Dealing with the specifics of the case.

I was reading the other day how Michael Faraday's great discovery owed a lot to his religious outlook and lack of formal scientific education.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why not start a thread from this specific viewpoint? Dealing with the specifics of the case.

I was reading the other day how Michael Faraday's great discovery owed a lot to his religious outlook and lack of formal scientific education.

Why not start a thread from this specific viewpoint? Dealing with the specifics of the case.

Good idea. I wish I had the time, since this has been brewing for a while. Such a thread would require more than the exchange of pleasantries and quite a bit of research on my part to make an ironclad case. I’ll put it on ice for the time being.