I really don’t think an ad hominem attack was necessary, even here in the Pit. Aji de Gallina actually has a point. If I’m a physicist, conducting an experiment on how various materials affect the refraction of light, do my results change depending on whether or not I believe in evolution? Or would my belief in evolution have caused me to abandon my experiment altogether?
I don’t think so.
Well, that was unnecessary.
Sorry, not reading the thread gets you a “retard” as well. Them’s the breaks.
This whole thing is unnecessary; a hijack sprung from a failure to read.
Sorry, but it really gets my goat when someone goes off an entire elaborate hijack based solely on a failure to read the thread. Add to that, in this particular case, the minor point that on top of not reading, he?she is flat out wrong. But that’s not nearly as annoying as arguing from the position of not having read the thread. Tha’s pit worthy. So I pitted.
I stick to the ground because God wants me to. Q.E.D. I care not for your heathen… gravity.
Hmm, I read the entire thread, and yet I agree with jsc1953 and Ají de Gallina. Maybe I’m a retard too. Or maybe you’re just not getting in and your ad hominem attacks are misplaced and wrong.
Either way, they certainly are rude.
Funny; I could’ve sworn I was reading. Had my eyeballs pointed at the screen and everything. Oh well…I guess you know better.
And wrt to the relationship between evolution and science…how does one explain all that science done for the thousands of years before there was a theory of evolution? Isaac Newton wants to know if everything he did was wrong.
Is this not in the pit? Did this get moved to GD?
How many times have I tried to hold a civilized conversation in the pit only to be drowned out by ad hominems? Protesting which only elicits a shower of “man up, you’re in the pit”? WTF? Can someone please write down the unwritten “lissener only” rules so I can have them too? Thanks.
Newton was not thousands of years before the theory of evolution. I’d hesitate to refer to the work of most of those who were – for example, Aristole – as “science.” Aristotle and his lot were doing the precursors of science.
Seriously? You read the part where I specified “biological sciences”? And the part where **jsc **and **Aji **responded as if I’d said astronomy or physics?
OK, let me try another analogy. Can a physiologist experiment with cancer-fighting drugs without believing in evolution? I think so. Or, to come back to the Isaac Newton line of reasoning: was there no biological science done prior to 1859? Skald would say that everything done in physiology or anatomy or botany or zoology up to that point was the “precursor” of science.
No, I wouldn’t. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise. Here is what I wrote in my last post:
Anyone with 6th-grade reading comprehension skills can clearly see that I ascribe the precursors of science to the work of classical philosophers who are notorious (though not universal) in not testing their assertions, or who were prevented by the mores of the time from doing so. Galen, for instance, left no records of ever dissecting a human body, because the culture of his time did not permit such, and thus if he did it he would likely not have admitted it.
No; a physiologist can’t become a competent physiologist without understanding the fundamentals of biology.
(Just to get this straight now: you argued with me initially, apparently, because you missed where I said “biological,” and contradicted my assertion by invoking such examples as Aristotle and Newton. And now that I’ve pointed out that I specifically said “biological,” instead of going, “Oh sorry, missed that, never mind,” you’re stepping up your argument to try and apply it to biological science? Just so we’re clear?)
That’s one of the things the Grinds My Gears. I really don’t give a damn what some moron wants to believe, but I don’t want that crap pushed at me. Believe what you want, and leave me alone.
That’s it, in a nutshell.
I’m going to abandon the analogy now, since it’s gonna get weird if I don’t.
I don’t mind if a person takes bits of different religions and attempts to integrate them into a semi-consistent world view. I do find it annoying when a person just picks up random ideas from the philosophere and claims to understand them and believe them, and the various bits are at odds.
Example the first: “I was raised a Christian, but I’ve been influenced by Buddhism. Nowadays I wonder if Jesus was a boddhisatva.”
Example the second: "I was raised a Christian, and I reject all of that stuff, except heaven, and the angels, and especially guardian angels, 'cause I have one. I worship Durga, 'cause I met this person who told me how awesome Durga is. Buddha was cool, 'cause he was all into like reincarnation and stuff, and I think it’s so great that we can be reincarnated as animals, 'cause I like animals, especially lions, 'cause they’re my totem animal. "
Well, I think we’ll just have to A2D. I think you can understand precisely how the human body works without knowing a thing about the millions of years of development that got it to where it is today. To (yet again) try an analogy…can a mechanic fix a 2004 Volkswagen Passat without knowing how Henry Ford developed the Model T? He might be a more interesting and well-rounded mechanic if he does, but it’s not essential.
Sure he can. However, without the Model T there probably never would have been a 2004 Volkswagen Passat to begin with, and if all people were of the level of curiosity of the hypothetical mechanic we’d still be hitching up mules. The 21st century cars were improvements on 1990s cars were improvement on 1980s cars etc etc etc back to the 19th century.
Now could somebody design a better car without knowledge of automotive history? Probably not.
An Onion classic: Intelligent Falling
The reason I decided to make a stand here (where I seldom venture) is that there seem to be a lot of people on this board who are offended by the existence of stupid people. Who feel threatened by them…panties in a bunch, hair on fire, screaming that we’re about to enter a second Dark Age because there are New Agers and Creationists out there.
Relax.
Assuming that there are…and they raise their children similarly: those children grow up to be mailmen, and mid-level bureaucrats, and C++ programmers: who cares. But let’s say a tiny percentage become scientists: they can have nice long rewarding careers in physics and chemistry and engineering; again, no problem. (Young Earth Creationists may have a problem with astronomy, though)
But let’s say some go into biological research. They get frustrated when their experiments fail to produce the expected results, and quit. Again…I don’t see the harm.
I don’t care what they do, according to your examples. My problem starts when they presume to try and tell “Me” what to think or what to believe or how to live. My problem starts when they try to make laws and enforce them on “Me”.