| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2004 09:38:03 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Gould and Racism |
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
Wilson, Edward O. Winter 1997. In "Why I am a secular
humanist" _Free Inquiry_ v18 n1 p18(5). Reprinted at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhumanist.shtml
_Free Inquiry_ describes Wilson as "Emeritus Professor of
Entomology at Harvard University and author of numerous
widely acclaimed books including _Sociobiology_." The entire
Wilson section:
I was raised a Southern Baptist in a religious environment
that favored a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it
happened that I also became fascinated by natural history
at an early age, and, as a biology concentrator at the
University of Alabama, discovered evolution. All that I
had learned of the living world to that point fell into place
in a wholly new and intellectually compelling way. It was
apparent to me that life is connected not by supernatural
design but by kinship, with species having multiplied out
of other species to create, over hundreds of millions of
years, the great panoply of biodiversity around us today. If
a Divine Creator put it all here several thousand years ago,
he also salted Earth from pole to pole with falsified
massive, interlocking evidence to make scientists believe
life evolved autonomously. I realized that something was
terribly wrong in this dissonance. The God depicted in
Holy Scripture is variously benevolent, didactic, loving,
angry, and vengeful, but never tricky.
As time passed, I learned that scientific materialism
explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the origin
and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old combined.
Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone. We
must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
own destiny.
Why then, am I a humanist? Let me give the answer in
terms of Blaise Pascal's Wager. The seventeenth-century
French philosopher said, in effect, live well but accept
religious faith. "If I lost," he wrote. "I would have lost
little: If I won I would have gained eternal life." Given
what we now know of the real world, I would turn the
Wager around as follows: if fear and hope and reason
dictate that you must accept the faith, do so, but treat this
world as if there is none other.
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
.
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
13 Aug 2004 10:52:27 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the text?
It worked the other way around, Wilson bringing science into his
philosophy, agendas, doctrine, metaphysics, whatever you
wish to call it.
Wilson, Edward O. Winter 1997. In "Why I am a secular
humanist" _Free Inquiry_ v18 n1 p18(5). Reprinted at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhumanist.shtml
_Free Inquiry_ describes Wilson as "Emeritus Professor of
Entomology at Harvard University and author of numerous
widely acclaimed books including _Sociobiology_." The entire
Wilson section:
I was raised a Southern Baptist in a religious environment
that favored a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it
happened that I also became fascinated by natural history
at an early age, and, as a biology concentrator at the
University of Alabama, discovered evolution. All that I
had learned of the living world to that point fell into place
in a wholly new and intellectually compelling way. It was
apparent to me that life is connected not by supernatural
design but by kinship, with species having multiplied out
of other species to create, over hundreds of millions of
years, the great panoply of biodiversity around us today. If
a Divine Creator put it all here several thousand years ago,
he also salted Earth from pole to pole with falsified
massive, interlocking evidence to make scientists believe
life evolved autonomously. I realized that something was
terribly wrong in this dissonance. The God depicted in
Holy Scripture is variously benevolent, didactic, loving,
angry, and vengeful, but never tricky.
As time passed, I learned that scientific materialism
explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the origin
and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old combined.
Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone. We
must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
own destiny.
Why then, am I a humanist? Let me give the answer in
terms of Blaise Pascal's Wager. The seventeenth-century
French philosopher said, in effect, live well but accept
religious faith. "If I lost," he wrote. "I would have lost
little: If I won I would have gained eternal life." Given
what we now know of the real world, I would turn the
Wager around as follows: if fear and hope and reason
dictate that you must accept the faith, do so, but treat this
world as if there is none other.
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
13 Aug 2004 06:26:28 PM |
|
|
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
It worked the other way around, Wilson bringing science into his
philosophy, agendas, doctrine, metaphysics, whatever you
wish to call it.
[TH]"Wilson bringing science into his philosophy, agendas, doctrine,
metaphysics"
Please briefly describe this [TH]"science" that Wilson brought.
Do you consider materialism to be [TH]"science"?
Wilson, Edward O. Winter 1997. In "Why I am a secular
humanist" _Free Inquiry_ v18 n1 p18(5). Reprinted at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhumanist.shtml
_Free Inquiry_ describes Wilson as "Emeritus Professor of
Entomology at Harvard University and author of numerous
widely acclaimed books including _Sociobiology_." The entire
Wilson section:
I was raised a Southern Baptist in a religious environment
that favored a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it
happened that I also became fascinated by natural history
at an early age, and, as a biology concentrator at the
University of Alabama, discovered evolution. All that I
had learned of the living world to that point fell into place
in a wholly new and intellectually compelling way. It was
apparent to me that life is connected not by supernatural
design but by kinship, with species having multiplied out
of other species to create, over hundreds of millions of
years, the great panoply of biodiversity around us today. If
a Divine Creator put it all here several thousand years ago,
he also salted Earth from pole to pole with falsified
massive, interlocking evidence to make scientists believe
life evolved autonomously. I realized that something was
terribly wrong in this dissonance. The God depicted in
Holy Scripture is variously benevolent, didactic, loving,
angry, and vengeful, but never tricky.
As time passed, I learned that scientific materialism
explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the origin
and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old combined.
Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone. We
must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
own destiny.
Why then, am I a humanist? Let me give the answer in
terms of Blaise Pascal's Wager. The seventeenth-century
French philosopher said, in effect, live well but accept
religious faith. "If I lost," he wrote. "I would have lost
little: If I won I would have gained eternal life." Given
what we now know of the real world, I would turn the
Wager around as follows: if fear and hope and reason
dictate that you must accept the faith, do so, but treat this
world as if there is none other.
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself. I think that everything
I do is perfectly fine, and I demand with all the force of science
behind me that no one and no science-disproved 'God' hold me
accountable for anything. I decide my own destiny, so get out of my
way."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
15 Aug 2004 08:47:07 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>...
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
So you "measure and judge" the God you worship? I was always told that
man has no right to judge God. But, to each his own, I guess.
By the way, are you a sinner? Without measuring or judging yourself,
how can you tell?
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself. I think that everything
I do is perfectly fine, and I demand with all the force of science
behind me that no one and no science-disproved 'God' hold me
accountable for anything. I decide my own destiny, so get out of my
way."
I bet you wish you could find something actually wrong with what
Wilson said. Then you wouldn't *need* to put words in his mouth to try
to make him look bad. It would be so much easier for you, don't you
think? And less dishonest, too.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
16 Aug 2004 06:54:37 PM |
|
|
(Billy Goat) wrote in message news:<6bd3c70a.0408151757.77b3de84@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>...
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
So you "measure and judge" the God you worship? I was always told that
man has no right to judge God. But, to each his own, I guess.
Secular humanists have determined that 'God' doesn't have a right to
exist-- science has supposedly made the God hypothesis unnecessary to
account for _anything_, including the origin of the universe, the
origin of the first lifeform, and the origin of the religious impulse
in humans.
By the way, are you a sinner? Without measuring or judging yourself,
how can you tell?
What is a [B]"sinner"?
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself. I think that everything
I do is perfectly fine, and I demand with all the force of science
behind me that no one and no science-disproved 'God' hold me
accountable for anything. I decide my own destiny, so get out of my
way."
I bet you wish you could find something actually wrong with what
Wilson said. Then you wouldn't *need* to put words in his mouth to try
to make him look bad. It would be so much easier for you, don't you
think? And less dishonest, too.
You allege that I have engaged in dishonesty. From the secular
humanist viewpoint/worldview, there is no longer any need for an
individual to feel 'guilty.' Hence, there is no longer any need to
feel guilt about dishonesty, according to the secular humanist faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
19 Aug 2004 08:28:30 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161605.5aef662f@posting.google.com>...
ericvonl@my-deja.com (Billy Goat) wrote in message news:<6bd3c70a.0408151757.77b3de84@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>...
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
So you "measure and judge" the God you worship? I was always told that
man has no right to judge God. But, to each his own, I guess.
Secular humanists have determined that 'God' doesn't have a right to
exist-- science has supposedly made the God hypothesis unnecessary to
account for _anything_, including the origin of the universe, the
origin of the first lifeform, and the origin of the religious impulse
in humans.
Science didn't make the God hypothesis unnecessary. It already *is*
unnecessary. It won't *become* necessary until every other hypothesis
fails to explain what is observed. That's what hypotheses are for:
they are thought up to explain what is observed.
And what God hypothesis, exactly? The generic "There is a Creator"? Or
something more specific, like "The Bible describes the Creator
accurately"? The Bible claims that there are six-winged
multiple-animal-headed creatures in Heaven worshipping God day and
night. What observations could have possibly led to *that* part of the
"God hypothesis"?
You see, it's not that the God hypothesis is unnecessary; it's a
worthless hypothesis unless it includes testable details. You wouldn't
want us worshipping just any deity, would you? Would God?
By the way, are you a sinner? Without measuring or judging yourself,
how can you tell?
What is a [B]"sinner"?
Hey, you're the theist, you tell me. It's been my experience that most
theists refer to themselves as sinners, and it seems to me that that
statement can only be made by people who have done some measuring and
judging. The definition doesn't matter; the point is that theists
measure and judge themselves just as much as any atheist. Maybe even
moreso, with religion giving them new concepts such as "sin" to
measure themselves against.
I bet you wish you could find something actually wrong with what
Wilson said. Then you wouldn't *need* to put words in his mouth to try
to make him look bad. It would be so much easier for you, don't you
think? And less dishonest, too.
You allege that I have engaged in dishonesty. From the secular
humanist viewpoint/worldview, there is no longer any need for an
individual to feel 'guilty.' Hence, there is no longer any need to
feel guilt about dishonesty, according to the secular humanist faith.
Oh look, more dishonesty. The secular humanist worldview does *not*
say there is no need for guilt. You made that up. Besides, *you're*
not a secular humanist, so feel free to start feeling guilty about
your dishonesty.
You know, I preferred it when you did your "what's wrong with the
following statements" routine. You presented both sides, and at least
created the illusion that you were curious about people's *actual*
worldviews.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
19 Aug 2004 08:28:32 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408161605.5aef662f@posting.google.com>...
ericvonl@my-deja.com (Billy Goat) wrote in message news:<6bd3c70a.0408151757.77b3de84@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>...
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
So you "measure and judge" the God you worship? I was always told that
man has no right to judge God. But, to each his own, I guess.
Secular humanists have determined that 'God' doesn't have a right to
exist-- science has supposedly made the God hypothesis unnecessary to
account for _anything_, including the origin of the universe, the
origin of the first lifeform, and the origin of the religious impulse
in humans.
Science didn't make the God hypothesis unnecessary. It already *is*
unnecessary. It won't *become* necessary until every other hypothesis
fails to explain what is observed. That's what hypotheses are for:
they are thought up to explain what is observed.
And what God hypothesis, exactly? The generic "There is a Creator"? Or
something more specific, like "The Bible describes the Creator
accurately"? The Bible claims that there are six-winged
multiple-animal-headed creatures in Heaven worshipping God day and
night. What observations could have possibly led to *that* part of the
"God hypothesis"?
You see, it's not that the God hypothesis is unnecessary; it's a
worthless hypothesis unless it includes testable details. You wouldn't
want us worshipping just any deity, would you? Would God?
By the way, are you a sinner? Without measuring or judging yourself,
how can you tell?
What is a [B]"sinner"?
Hey, you're the theist, you tell me. It's been my experience that most
theists refer to themselves as sinners, and it seems to me that that
statement can only be made by people who have done some measuring and
judging. The definition doesn't matter; the point is that theists
measure and judge themselves just as much as any atheist. Maybe even
moreso, with religion giving them new concepts such as "sin" to
measure themselves against.
I bet you wish you could find something actually wrong with what
Wilson said. Then you wouldn't *need* to put words in his mouth to try
to make him look bad. It would be so much easier for you, don't you
think? And less dishonest, too.
You allege that I have engaged in dishonesty. From the secular
humanist viewpoint/worldview, there is no longer any need for an
individual to feel 'guilty.' Hence, there is no longer any need to
feel guilt about dishonesty, according to the secular humanist faith.
Oh look, more dishonesty. The secular humanist worldview does *not*
say there is no need for guilt. You made that up. Besides, *you're*
not a secular humanist, so feel free to start feeling guilty about
your dishonesty.
You know, I preferred it when you did your "what's wrong with the
following statements" routine. You presented both sides, and at least
created the illusion that you were curious about people's *actual*
worldviews.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
16 Aug 2004 10:26:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:54:37 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
ericvonl@my-deja.com (Billy Goat) wrote in message news:<6bd3c70a.0408151757.77b3de84@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>...
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
So you "measure and judge" the God you worship? I was always told that
man has no right to judge God. But, to each his own, I guess.
Secular humanists have determined that 'God' doesn't have a right to
exist-- science has supposedly made the God hypothesis unnecessary to
account for _anything_, including the origin of the universe, the
origin of the first lifeform, and the origin of the religious impulse
in humans.
That's a lie, DAvid, and I'm sure you know it is. Methodological naturalism
does not deal in omnipotent beings. The "God hypothesis" isn't science.
But prove me wrong. Provide a test to falsify the existence of God. Here's
your big chance, David. Care to take me up on it?
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
15 Aug 2004 10:16:20 AM |
|
|
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-A973C8.14371514082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <20040813211322.18151.00001538@mb-m03.aol.com>, bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
david ford:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
It worked the other way around, Wilson bringing science into his
philosophy, agendas, doctrine, metaphysics, whatever you
wish to call it.
[TH]"Wilson bringing science into his philosophy, agendas, doctrine,
metaphysics"
Please briefly describe this [TH]"science" that Wilson brought.
Do you consider materialism to be [TH]"science"?
Wilson, Edward O. Winter 1997. In "Why I am a secular
humanist" _Free Inquiry_ v18 n1 p18(5). Reprinted at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhumanist.shtml
_Free Inquiry_ describes Wilson as "Emeritus Professor of
Entomology at Harvard University and author of numerous
widely acclaimed books including _Sociobiology_." The entire
Wilson section:
I was raised a Southern Baptist in a religious environment
that favored a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it
happened that I also became fascinated by natural history
at an early age, and, as a biology concentrator at the
University of Alabama, discovered evolution. All that I
had learned of the living world to that point fell into place
in a wholly new and intellectually compelling way. It was
apparent to me that life is connected not by supernatural
design but by kinship, with species having multiplied out
of other species to create, over hundreds of millions of
years, the great panoply of biodiversity around us today. If
a Divine Creator put it all here several thousand years ago,
he also salted Earth from pole to pole with falsified
massive, interlocking evidence to make scientists believe
life evolved autonomously. I realized that something was
terribly wrong in this dissonance. The God depicted in
Holy Scripture is variously benevolent, didactic, loving,
angry, and vengeful, but never tricky.
As time passed, I learned that scientific materialism
explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the origin
and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old combined.
Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone. We
must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
own destiny.
Why then, am I a humanist? Let me give the answer in
terms of Blaise Pascal's Wager. The seventeenth-century
French philosopher said, in effect, live well but accept
religious faith. "If I lost," he wrote. "I would have lost
little: If I won I would have gained eternal life." Given
what we now know of the real world, I would turn the
Wager around as follows: if fear and hope and reason
dictate that you must accept the faith, do so, but treat this
world as if there is none other.
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself.
Indeed a little introspection helps every now and then. Some of us are
capable
of catching ourselves when we screw up. Others only behave purely out of
fear.
Introspection is not needed.
However, introspection is not something people like yourself, who are well on
their way to kookdom, are capable of anymore.
I've seen creationists behavee this way before. Some take in the info they've
actually been given and give up their creationist beliefs. Others go in the
opposite direction, become more dishonest, and less and less interested in
actual discussion as they deparately feel the need to kling to their belief
system.
Simple fact is Ford, you don't have a contribution to make. You have no
scientific arguments, just cherry picked, misquoted, and of context
quotations.
How sorry for you. Continue on your descent into kookdom.
*
He doesn't have far to go -- should be there any minute.
If I'm able, I will let everyone know what it looks like when I get there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
13 Aug 2004 06:49:17 PM |
|
|
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
It worked the other way around, Wilson bringing science into his
philosophy, agendas, doctrine, metaphysics, whatever you
wish to call it.
[TH]"Wilson bringing science into his philosophy, agendas, doctrine,
metaphysics"
Please briefly describe this [TH]"science" that Wilson brought.
Do you consider materialism to be [TH]"science"?
Wilson, Edward O. Winter 1997. In "Why I am a secular
humanist" _Free Inquiry_ v18 n1 p18(5). Reprinted at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhumanis
t.shtml
_Free Inquiry_ describes Wilson as "Emeritus Professor of
Entomology at Harvard University and author of numerous
widely acclaimed books including _Sociobiology_." The entire
Wilson section:
I was raised a Southern Baptist in a religious environment
that favored a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it
happened that I also became fascinated by natural history
at an early age, and, as a biology concentrator at the
University of Alabama, discovered evolution. All that I
had learned of the living world to that point fell into place
in a wholly new and intellectually compelling way. It was
apparent to me that life is connected not by supernatural
design but by kinship, with species having multiplied out
of other species to create, over hundreds of millions of
years, the great panoply of biodiversity around us today. If
a Divine Creator put it all here several thousand years ago,
he also salted Earth from pole to pole with falsified
massive, interlocking evidence to make scientists believe
life evolved autonomously. I realized that something was
terribly wrong in this dissonance. The God depicted in
Holy Scripture is variously benevolent, didactic, loving,
angry, and vengeful, but never tricky.
As time passed, I learned that scientific materialism
explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the origin
and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old combined.
Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone. We
must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
own destiny.
Why then, am I a humanist? Let me give the answer in
terms of Blaise Pascal's Wager. The seventeenth-century
French philosopher said, in effect, live well but accept
religious faith. "If I lost," he wrote. "I would have lost
little: If I won I would have gained eternal life." Given
what we now know of the real world, I would turn the
Wager around as follows: if fear and hope and reason
dictate that you must accept the faith, do so, but treat this
world as if there is none other.
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself....
You'd better read it again, you ignorant *****.
Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes. What have you earned?
My guess: zip *****.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
15 Aug 2004 09:17:37 AM |
|
|
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-62EA19.16594713082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>, (david ford) wrote:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
It worked the other way around, Wilson bringing science into his
philosophy, agendas, doctrine, metaphysics, whatever you
wish to call it.
[TH]"Wilson bringing science into his philosophy, agendas, doctrine,
metaphysics"
Please briefly describe this [TH]"science" that Wilson brought.
Do you consider materialism to be [TH]"science"?
Wilson, Edward O. Winter 1997. In "Why I am a secular
humanist" _Free Inquiry_ v18 n1 p18(5). Reprinted at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhumanist.shtml
_Free Inquiry_ describes Wilson as "Emeritus Professor of
Entomology at Harvard University and author of numerous
widely acclaimed books including _Sociobiology_." The entire
Wilson section:
I was raised a Southern Baptist in a religious environment
that favored a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it
happened that I also became fascinated by natural history
at an early age, and, as a biology concentrator at the
University of Alabama, discovered evolution. All that I
had learned of the living world to that point fell into place
in a wholly new and intellectually compelling way. It was
apparent to me that life is connected not by supernatural
design but by kinship, with species having multiplied out
of other species to create, over hundreds of millions of
years, the great panoply of biodiversity around us today. If
a Divine Creator put it all here several thousand years ago,
he also salted Earth from pole to pole with falsified
massive, interlocking evidence to make scientists believe
life evolved autonomously. I realized that something was
terribly wrong in this dissonance. The God depicted in
Holy Scripture is variously benevolent, didactic, loving,
angry, and vengeful, but never tricky.
As time passed, I learned that scientific materialism
explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the origin
and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old combined.
Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone. We
must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
own destiny.
Why then, am I a humanist? Let me give the answer in
terms of Blaise Pascal's Wager. The seventeenth-century
French philosopher said, in effect, live well but accept
religious faith. "If I lost," he wrote. "I would have lost
little: If I won I would have gained eternal life." Given
what we now know of the real world, I would turn the
Wager around as follows: if fear and hope and reason
dictate that you must accept the faith, do so, but treat this
world as if there is none other.
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself
....
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself. I think that everything
I do is perfectly fine, and I demand with all the force of science
behind me that no one and no science-disproved 'God' hold me
accountable for anything. I decide my own destiny, so get out of my
way."
You'd better read it again, you ignorant *****.
If you say so.
Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes. What have you earned?
My guess: zip *****.
Your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the way of prizes
is correct. What have you earned, Earle?
[EJ]"Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes." So what? Does Wilson's winning
Pulitzer prizes make this allegation correct?:
[Wilson]"scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible
world, physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the
Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed"
Does Wilson's winning Pulitzer prizes make this allegation correct?:
[Wilson]"like it or not, we are alone. We must measure and judge
ourselves, and we will decide our own destiny."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
15 Aug 2004 07:51:54 PM |
|
|
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408150628.67eb488@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<earle.jones-62EA19.16594713082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
It worked the other way around, Wilson bringing science into his
philosophy, agendas, doctrine, metaphysics, whatever you
wish to call it.
[TH]"Wilson bringing science into his philosophy, agendas, doctrine,
metaphysics"
Please briefly describe this [TH]"science" that Wilson brought.
Do you consider materialism to be [TH]"science"?
Wilson, Edward O. Winter 1997. In "Why I am a secular
humanist" _Free Inquiry_ v18 n1 p18(5). Reprinted at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhum
anist.shtml
_Free Inquiry_ describes Wilson as "Emeritus Professor of
Entomology at Harvard University and author of numerous
widely acclaimed books including _Sociobiology_." The entire
Wilson section:
I was raised a Southern Baptist in a religious environment
that favored a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it
happened that I also became fascinated by natural history
at an early age, and, as a biology concentrator at the
University of Alabama, discovered evolution. All that I
had learned of the living world to that point fell into place
in a wholly new and intellectually compelling way. It was
apparent to me that life is connected not by supernatural
design but by kinship, with species having multiplied out
of other species to create, over hundreds of millions of
years, the great panoply of biodiversity around us today. If
a Divine Creator put it all here several thousand years ago,
he also salted Earth from pole to pole with falsified
massive, interlocking evidence to make scientists believe
life evolved autonomously. I realized that something was
terribly wrong in this dissonance. The God depicted in
Holy Scripture is variously benevolent, didactic, loving,
angry, and vengeful, but never tricky.
As time passed, I learned that scientific materialism
explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the origin
and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old combined.
Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone. We
must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
own destiny.
Why then, am I a humanist? Let me give the answer in
terms of Blaise Pascal's Wager. The seventeenth-century
French philosopher said, in effect, live well but accept
religious faith. "If I lost," he wrote. "I would have lost
little: If I won I would have gained eternal life." Given
what we now know of the real world, I would turn the
Wager around as follows: if fear and hope and reason
dictate that you must accept the faith, do so, but treat this
world as if there is none other.
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself
....
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself. I think that everything
I do is perfectly fine, and I demand with all the force of science
behind me that no one and no science-disproved 'God' hold me
accountable for anything. I decide my own destiny, so get out of my
way."
You'd better read it again, you ignorant *****.
If you say so.
Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes. What have you earned?
My guess: zip *****.
Your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the way of prizes
is correct. What have you earned, Earle?
*
I have 13 issued US patents covering a raft of concepts, some of
which relate to medical imaging systems. As VP for Advanced
Technology, I directed the activities of a Division of 250 engineers
working on medical applications of bioengineering in a major US
research organization. I earned a BS with the highest honors prize
in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech and a MS, also in EE,
from Stanford University. I have been elected to four national
honor societies. Most recently, I was elected to the "Hall of Fame"
of my research organization for outstanding contributions over many
years.
Your turn, Ford:
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
19 Aug 2004 02:50:14 PM |
|
|
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-AD9D79.18024615082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408150628.67eb488@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<earle.jones-62EA19.16594713082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
No David, simply being an idiot (no caps) is quite sufficient.
[biggus snippus]
Your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the way of prizes
is correct. What have you earned, Earle?
I think relevancy of Wilson's Pulitzers to this particular thread is
that it demonstrates high proficiency in the English language -- a
skill at which Ford appears quirkily deficient.
*
I have 13 issued US patents covering a raft of concepts, some of
which relate to medical imaging systems. As VP for Advanced
Technology, I directed the activities of a Division of 250 engineers
working on medical applications of bioengineering in a major US
research organization. I earned a BS with the highest honors prize
in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech and a MS, also in EE,
from Stanford University. I have been elected to four national
honor societies. Most recently, I was elected to the "Hall of Fame"
of my research organization for outstanding contributions over many
years.
You know, if you'd just said you were a ramblin' wreck and a
helluvanengineer, it would have been shorter and conveyed much the
same information ;-).
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
20 Aug 2004 07:01:26 AM |
|
|
(Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.0408191201.21ddf195@posting.google.com>...
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-AD9D79.18024615082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408150628.67eb488@posting.google.com>, (david ford) wrote:
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<earle.jones-62EA19.16594713082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
No David, simply being an idiot (no caps) is quite sufficient.
OK.
[biggus snippus]
Your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the way of prizes
is correct. What have you earned, Earle?
I think relevancy of Wilson's Pulitzers to this particular thread is
that it demonstrates high proficiency in the English language -- a
skill at which Ford appears quirkily deficient.
Does [LKK]"high proficiency in the English language" translate into
always making accurate statements in English?
Andrew Brown notes that E.O. Wilson "sprinkles his more ambitious
work with bum notes," and gives as an illustration an erroneous Wilson
claim about England's history. See Brown's _The Darwin Wars_ (1999),
59.
*
I have 13 issued US patents covering a raft of concepts, some of
which relate to medical imaging systems. As VP for Advanced
Technology, I directed the activities of a Division of 250 engineers
working on medical applications of bioengineering in a major US
research organization. I earned a BS with the highest honors prize
in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech and a MS, also in EE,
from Stanford University. I have been elected to four national
honor societies. Most recently, I was elected to the "Hall of Fame"
of my research organization for outstanding contributions over many
years.
You know, if you'd just said you were a ramblin' wreck and a
helluvanengineer, it would have been shorter and conveyed much the
same information ;-).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
23 Aug 2004 09:11:41 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408200413.40267d65@posting.google.com>...
lt_kizhe@yahoo.ca (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.0408191201.21ddf195@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
I think relevancy of Wilson's Pulitzers to this particular thread is
that it demonstrates high proficiency in the English language -- a
skill at which Ford appears quirkily deficient.
Does [LKK]"high proficiency in the English language" translate into
always making accurate statements in English?
No, and no one said it did. Sheesh, you have a talent for asking stupid questions.
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
24 Aug 2004 07:32:18 AM |
|
|
(Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.0408230623.11a63516@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408200413.40267d65@posting.google.com>...
(Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.0408191201.21ddf195@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
I think relevancy of Wilson's Pulitzers to this particular thread is
that it demonstrates high proficiency in the English language -- a
skill at which Ford appears quirkily deficient.
Does [LKK]"high proficiency in the English language" translate into
always making accurate statements in English?
No, and no one said it did. Sheesh, you have a talent for
asking stupid questions.
Would it be fair to say that you view the important question to be my
ability or inability in using the English language, and not the
question of the accuracy or inaccuracy or strength or weakness of my
claims and arguments?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
19 Aug 2004 10:30:16 PM |
|
|
In article <47b867ea.0408191201.21ddf195@posting.google.com>,
(Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote:
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<earle.jones-AD9D79.18024615082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408150628.67eb488@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<earle.jones-62EA19.16594713082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the
text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
No David, simply being an idiot (no caps) is quite sufficient.
[biggus snippus]
Your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the way of prizes
is correct. What have you earned, Earle?
I think relevancy of Wilson's Pulitzers to this particular thread is
that it demonstrates high proficiency in the English language -- a
skill at which Ford appears quirkily deficient.
*
I have 13 issued US patents covering a raft of concepts, some of
which relate to medical imaging systems. As VP for Advanced
Technology, I directed the activities of a Division of 250 engineers
working on medical applications of bioengineering in a major US
research organization. I earned a BS with the highest honors prize
in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech and a MS, also in EE,
from Stanford University. I have been elected to four national
honor societies. Most recently, I was elected to the "Hall of Fame"
of my research organization for outstanding contributions over many
years.
You know, if you'd just said you were a ramblin' wreck and a
helluvanengineer, it would have been shorter and conveyed much the
same information ;-).
-- Kizhe
*
Or, as we used to say, "A nervous wreck from Georgia Tech!"
But, when challenged by an idiot, I tend to respond.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
20 Aug 2004 06:17:28 AM |
|
|
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-617208.20414919082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <47b867ea.0408191201.21ddf195@posting.google.com>, (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote:
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-AD9D79.18024615082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408150628.67eb488@posting.google.com>, (david ford) wrote:
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-62EA19.16594713082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the
text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
No David, simply being an idiot (no caps) is quite sufficient.
[biggus snippus]
Your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the way of prizes
is correct. What have you earned, Earle?
I think relevancy of Wilson's Pulitzers to this particular thread is
that it demonstrates high proficiency in the English language -- a
skill at which Ford appears quirkily deficient.
*
I have 13 issued US patents covering a raft of concepts, some of
which relate to medical imaging systems. As VP for Advanced
Technology, I directed the activities of a Division of 250 engineers
working on medical applications of bioengineering in a major US
research organization. I earned a BS with the highest honors prize
in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech and a MS, also in EE,
from Stanford University. I have been elected to four national
honor societies. Most recently, I was elected to the "Hall of Fame"
of my research organization for outstanding contributions over many
years.
You know, if you'd just said you were a ramblin' wreck and a
helluvanengineer, it would have been shorter and conveyed much the
same information ;-).
*
Or, as we used to say, "A nervous wreck from Georgia Tech!"
But, when challenged by an idiot, I tend to respond.
[EJ]"when challenged by an idiot, I tend to respond." In that case,
how about responding to this:
Do your impressive accomplishments mean that when you allege I am an
[EJ]"ignorant *****," you are correct?
[EJ]"Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes." So what? Does Wilson's winning
Pulitzer prizes make this allegation correct?:
[Wilson]"scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible
world, physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the
Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed"
Does Wilson's winning Pulitzer prizes make this allegation correct?:
[Wilson]"like it or not, we are alone. We must measure and judge
ourselves, and we will decide our own destiny."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
16 Aug 2004 10:13:58 AM |
|
|
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-AD9D79.18024615082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408150628.67eb488@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<earle.jones-62EA19.16594713082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
It worked the other way around, Wilson bringing science into his
philosophy, agendas, doctrine, metaphysics, whatever you
wish to call it.
[TH]"Wilson bringing science into his philosophy, agendas, doctrine,
metaphysics"
Please briefly describe this [TH]"science" that Wilson brought.
Do you consider materialism to be [TH]"science"?
Wilson, Edward O. Winter 1997. In "Why I am a secular
humanist" _Free Inquiry_ v18 n1 p18(5). Reprinted at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhum
anist.shtml
_Free Inquiry_ describes Wilson as "Emeritus Professor of
Entomology at Harvard University and author of numerous
widely acclaimed books including _Sociobiology_." The entire
Wilson section:
I was raised a Southern Baptist in a religious environment
that favored a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it
happened that I also became fascinated by natural history
at an early age, and, as a biology concentrator at the
University of Alabama, discovered evolution. All that I
had learned of the living world to that point fell into place
in a wholly new and intellectually compelling way. It was
apparent to me that life is connected not by supernatural
design but by kinship, with species having multiplied out
of other species to create, over hundreds of millions of
years, the great panoply of biodiversity around us today. If
a Divine Creator put it all here several thousand years ago,
he also salted Earth from pole to pole with falsified
massive, interlocking evidence to make scientists believe
life evolved autonomously. I realized that something was
terribly wrong in this dissonance. The God depicted in
Holy Scripture is variously benevolent, didactic, loving,
angry, and vengeful, but never tricky.
As time passed, I learned that scientific materialism
explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the origin
and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old combined.
Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone. We
must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
own destiny.
Why then, am I a humanist? Let me give the answer in
terms of Blaise Pascal's Wager. The seventeenth-century
French philosopher said, in effect, live well but accept
religious faith. "If I lost," he wrote. "I would have lost
little: If I won I would have gained eternal life." Given
what we now know of the real world, I would turn the
Wager around as follows: if fear and hope and reason
dictate that you must accept the faith, do so, but treat this
world as if there is none other.
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself
....
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself. I think that everything
I do is perfectly fine, and I demand with all the force of science
behind me that no one and no science-disproved 'God' hold me
accountable for anything. I decide my own destiny, so get out of my
way."
You'd better read it again, you ignorant *****.
If you say so.
Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes. What have you earned?
My guess: zip *****.
Your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the way of prizes
is correct. What have you earned, Earle?
*
I have 13 issued US patents covering a raft of concepts, some of
which relate to medical imaging systems. As VP for Advanced
Technology, I directed the activities of a Division of 250 engineers
working on medical applications of bioengineering in a major US
research organization. I earned a BS with the highest honors prize
in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech and a MS, also in EE,
from Stanford University. I have been elected to four national
honor societies. Most recently, I was elected to the "Hall of Fame"
of my research organization for outstanding contributions over many
years.
This is most impressive.
This is most impressive.
Do these impressive accomplishments mean that when you allege I am an
[EJ]"ignorant *****," you are correct?
Your turn, Ford:
As I noted, your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the
way of prizes is correct.
Also, I have no patents and no master's degree.
[EJ]"Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes." So what? Does Wilson's winning
Pulitzer prizes make this allegation correct?:
[Wilson]"scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible
world, physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the
Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed"
Does Wilson's winning Pulitzer prizes make this allegation correct?:
[Wilson]"like it or not, we are alone. We must measure and judge
ourselves, and we will decide our own destiny."
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
19 Aug 2004 06:37:40 AM |
|
|
bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message news:<20040817232828.13589.00003419@mb-m12.aol.com>...
david ford on 8/16/04 in Message-id: <dford3-b1c67abe.0408160725.67c10783@posting.google.com>
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-AD9D79.18024615082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408150628.67eb488@posting.google.com>, (david ford) wrote:
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-62EA19.16594713082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>, (david ford) wrote:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the
text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
It worked the other way around, Wilson bringing science into his
philosophy, agendas, doctrine, metaphysics, whatever you
wish to call it.
[TH]"Wilson bringing science into his philosophy, agendas, doctrine,
metaphysics"
Please briefly describe this [TH]"science" that Wilson brought.
Do you consider materialism to be [TH]"science"?
Wilson, Edward O. Winter 1997. In "Why I am a secular
humanist" _Free Inquiry_ v18 n1 p18(5). Reprinted at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhumanist.shtml
_Free Inquiry_ describes Wilson as "Emeritus Professor of
Entomology at Harvard University and author of numerous
widely acclaimed books including _Sociobiology_." The entire
Wilson section:
I was raised a Southern Baptist in a religious environment
that favored a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it
happened that I also became fascinated by natural history
at an early age, and, as a biology concentrator at the
University of Alabama, discovered evolution. All that I
had learned of the living world to that point fell into
place
in a wholly new and intellectually compelling way. It was
apparent to me that life is connected not by supernatural
design but by kinship, with species having multiplied out
of other species to create, over hundreds of millions of
years, the great panoply of biodiversity around us today.
If
a Divine Creator put it all here several thousand years ago,
he also salted Earth from pole to pole with falsified
massive, interlocking evidence to make scientists believe
life evolved autonomously. I realized that something was
terribly wrong in this dissonance. The God depicted in
Holy Scripture is variously benevolent, didactic, loving,
angry, and vengeful, but never tricky.
As time passed, I learned that scientific materialism
explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the
origin
and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old combined.
Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone.
We
must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
own destiny.
Why then, am I a humanist? Let me give the answer in
terms of Blaise Pascal's Wager. The seventeenth-century
French philosopher said, in effect, live well but accept
religious faith. "If I lost," he wrote. "I would have lost
little: If I won I would have gained eternal life." Given
what we now know of the real world, I would turn the
Wager around as follows: if fear and hope and reason
dictate that you must accept the faith, do so, but treat
this
world as if there is none other.
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself
....
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself. I think that everything
I do is perfectly fine, and I demand with all the force of science
behind me that no one and no science-disproved 'God' hold me
accountable for anything. I decide my own destiny, so get out of my
way."
You'd better read it again, you ignorant *****.
If you say so.
Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes. What have you earned?
My guess: zip *****.
Your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the way of prizes
is correct. What have you earned, Earle?
*
I have 13 issued US patents covering a raft of concepts, some of
which relate to medical imaging systems. As VP for Advanced
Technology, I directed the activities of a Division of 250 engineers
working on medical applications of bioengineering in a major US
research organization. I earned a BS with the highest honors prize
in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech and a MS, also in EE,
from Stanford University. I have been elected to four national
honor societies. Most recently, I was elected to the "Hall of Fame"
of my research organization for outstanding contributions over many
years.
This is most impressive.
This is most impressive.
Do these impressive accomplishments mean that when you allege I am an
[EJ]"ignorant *****," you are correct?
Your turn, Ford:
As I noted, your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the
way of prizes is correct.
Also, I have no patents and no master's degree.
But plenty of long ignorant rants on t.o.
Your posts are short and learned.
[EJ]"Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes." So what? Does Wilson's winning
Pulitzer prizes make this allegation correct?:
[Wilson]"scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible
world, physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the
Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed"
Um No. THat statement is supported by overwelming evidence.
What are 3 of the lines of evidence of this [B]"overwelming evidence"?
But what patents,
pulitzers and degrees do lend is credibility.
[B]"credibility" to what-- particular allegations?
You have none, nada. You're a kook.
Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on _ad hominems_
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990102235105.11328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Does Wilson's winning Pulitzer prizes make this allegation correct?:
[Wilson]"like it or not, we are alone. We must measure and judge
ourselves, and we will decide our own destiny."
Wilson is entitled to his opinion.
Yes, indees. Is there [B]"overwelming evidence" in support of
[Wilson]"like it or not, we are alone. We must measure and judge
ourselves, and we will decide our own destiny."? If yes, What are 3
lines of evidence illustrating this [B]"overwelming evidence"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
20 Aug 2004 06:54:42 AM |
|
|
bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message news:<20040819232006.04913.00002011@mb-m05.aol.com>...
david ford on 8/19/04 in Message-id: <dford3-b1c67abe.0408190349.1b8f33e2@posting.google.com>...
bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message news:<20040817232828.13589.00003419@mb-m12.aol.com>...
david ford on 8/16/04 in Message-id:
<dford3-b1c67abe.0408160725.67c10783@posting.google.com>
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<earle.jones-AD9D79.18024615082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408150628.67eb488@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<earle.jones-62EA19.16594713082004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0408131537.8aeab87@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<cfild8$hvd$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07@posting.google.com...
[Richard Crawford]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists
can bring their own doctrines and agendas to science"
Did the scientist Wilson [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines
and agendas to science" when writing this?:
The answer would be NO. Why can't you figure this out from the
text?
Because I'm an IDiot.
It worked the other way around, Wilson bringing science into his
philosophy, agendas, doctrine, metaphysics, whatever you
wish to call it.
[TH]"Wilson bringing science into his philosophy, agendas,
doctrine,
metaphysics"
Please briefly describe this [TH]"science" that Wilson brought.
Do you consider materialism to be [TH]"science"?
Wilson, Edward O. Winter 1997. In "Why I am a secular
humanist" _Free Inquiry_ v18 n1 p18(5). Reprinted at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhumani
st.shtml
_Free Inquiry_ describes Wilson as "Emeritus Professor of
Entomology at Harvard University and author of numerous
widely acclaimed books including _Sociobiology_." The entire
Wilson section:
I was raised a Southern Baptist in a religious
environment
that favored a literal interpretation of the Bible. But
it
happened that I also became fascinated by natural history
at an early age, and, as a biology concentrator at the
University of Alabama, discovered evolution. All that I
had learned of the living world to that point fell into
place
in a wholly new and intellectually compelling way. It
was
apparent to me that life is connected not by supernatural
design but by kinship, with species having multiplied out
of other species to create, over hundreds of millions of
years, the great panoply of biodiversity around us today.
If
a Divine Creator put it all here several thousand years
ago,
he also salted Earth from pole to pole with falsified
massive, interlocking evidence to make scientists believe
life evolved autonomously. I realized that something was
terribly wrong in this dissonance. The God depicted in
Holy Scripture is variously benevolent, didactic, loving,
angry, and vengeful, but never tricky.
As time passed, I learned that scientific materialism
explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
biological, in precise and useful detail, than the
Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the
origin
and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old
combined.
Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are
alone.
We
must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
own destiny.
Why then, am I a humanist? Let me give the answer in
terms of Blaise Pascal's Wager. The seventeenth-century
French philosopher said, in effect, live well but accept
religious faith. "If I lost," he wrote. "I would have
lost
little: If I won I would have gained eternal life."
Given
what we now know of the real world, I would turn the
Wager around as follows: if fear and hope and reason
dictate that you must accept the faith, do so, but treat
this
world as if there is none other.
[Wilson ]"We must measure and judge ourselves" Interesting
god you believe in, Wilson. Cute.
Become a secular humanist and you, too, can worship yourself.
Measuring and judging is not worshipping. Try that line as
a defendant in court and see what it gets you.
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself
....
"Your Honor, as the entomologist Edward O. Wilson points out,
according to science, I should judge myself. I think that everything
I do is perfectly fine, and I demand with all the force of science
behind me that no one and no science-disproved 'God' hold me
accountable for anything. I decide my own destiny, so get out of my
way."
You'd better read it again, you ignorant *****.
If you say so.
Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes. What have you earned?
My guess: zip *****.
Your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the way of prizes
is correct. What have you earned, Earle?
*
I have 13 issued US patents covering a raft of concepts, some of
which relate to medical imaging systems. As VP for Advanced
Technology, I directed the activities of a Division of 250 engineers
working on medical applications of bioengineering in a major US
research organization. I earned a BS with the highest honors prize
in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech and a MS, also in EE,
from Stanford University. I have been elected to four national
honor societies. Most recently, I was elected to the "Hall of Fame"
of my research organization for outstanding contributions over many
years.
This is most impressive.
This is most impressive.
Do these impressive accomplishments mean that when you allege I am an
[EJ]"ignorant *****," you are correct?
Your turn, Ford:
As I noted, your guess that I have [EJ]"earned.... zip *****" in the
way of prizes is correct.
Also, I have no patents and no master's degree.
But plenty of long ignorant rants on t.o.
Your posts are short and learned.
THank you.
No problem.
[EJ]"Wilson has two Pulitzer prizes." So what? Does Wilson's winning
Pulitzer prizes make this allegation correct?:
[Wilson]"scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible
world, physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the
Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
religions ever dreamed"
Um No. THat statement is supported by overwelming evidence.
What are 3 of the lines of evidence of this [B]"overwelming evidence"?
Three things Iron-Age theology and Mysticism couldn't explain:
1. The Sun.
2. The Seasons
3. The Weather
You're not terribly bright, Mr. Ford.
If you say so.
Can [Wilson]"scientific materialism explai[n]" how life originated
through the transformation of matter into life totally apart from the
input of any intelligence/mind whatsoever?
But what patents,
pulitzers and degrees do lend is credibility.
[B]"credibility" to what-- particular allegations?
You have none, nada. You're a kook.
Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on _ad hominems_
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990102235105.11328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
LOL.
Ford desparately enlists Feynman to help him?
Apparently.
Feynman, Richard P. _The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a
Citizen-Scientist_ (Reading, MA: 1998), 133pp. On 22:
Most people find it surprising that in science there is no interest
in the background of the author of an idea or in his motive in
expounding it. You listen, and if it sounds like a thing worth
trying, a thing that could be tried, is different, and is not
obviously contrary to something observed before, it gets exciting
and worthwhile. You do not have to worry about how long he has
studied or why he wants you to listen to him. In that sense it
makes no difference where the ideas come from. Their real origin
is unknown; we call it the imagination of the human brain, the
creative imagination--it is known [sic]; it is just one of those
"oomphs."
Feynman on uncertainty; Lyttleton's bead-on-a-wire illustration
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990601090737.1777A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Living Physics: A Biography of Richard Feynman
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10003220756520.4269-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Coyne and Feynman on Santa Claus
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981124234529.22878A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Coyne: classic peppered moth story "is in bad shape, and, while not
yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230510.519fe8a1%40posting.google.com
Try and and come up with a cogent scientific argument, if you wish to be taken
seriously.
What is a [B]"scientific argument"?
Does Wilson's winning Pulitzer prizes make this allegation correct?:
[Wilson]"like it or not, we are alone. We must measure and judge
ourselves, and we will decide our own destiny."
Wilson is entitled to his opinion.
Yes, indees. Is there [B]"overwelming evidence" in support of
[Wilson]"like it or not, we are alone. We must measure and judge
ourselves, and we will decide our own destiny."? If yes, What are 3
lines of evidence illustrating this [B]"overwelming evidence"?
Switch and Bait.
If you say so.
You'll have to do better Mr. Ford.
Are you saying the man isn't entitled to his opinion?
| | | | | | | | |
