February 9, 2009

Lab Coatauthoritarians

Speaking of Lab Coatauthoritarians AKA Liars for Science, John Cleese is clueless in a funny but very sad way.



Dr. David Berlinski is right, I think it's time to go after these so called Lab Coatauthoritarians.



UPDATE:

Froggie,

Trying to demonize science merely trivializes your faith based worldview. You should know better than this. Science is science

Nice try to misrepresent my position. Get this straight once and for all. I LOVE SCIENCE!!!

What I don't like is the presuppositions and biased against God that the SECULAR scientists have. They are trying to strangle hold simple common sense and hijack our educational system to teach false things. The Secular Scientists are liars for science. They do not represent the objectivity of science, they represent the common subjectivity of man hence the name Lab Coatauthoritarians.



bit.ly/LabCoatauth

33 comments:

  1. What Berlinski and company should be doing instead of whining about the people who actually bother to do relevant research, is to get off their rear-ends, get off the rubber chicken church-speaking circuit, and do some sodding research themselves.

    If they don't have any actual experiments, tests, or anything to back up their case, then they've got nothing to teach in classes.


    Remember this link?

    As for what they publish in books...

    They had their chance to strut their stuff and to cross-examine "Darwinists" in the Dover trial, but as you all well know, they completely fell apart because they've got nothing.

    Behe didn't even bother to do any real checking up on whether evolutionary biologists had done any research into blood-clotting or bacterial flagellum before he made the (proven false under cross-examination) claim that "evolutionists" hadn't solved the "problems" that they presented.


    It's about time they quit playing for sympathy and started to back up their claims with more than recycled disproven creationist bs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I forgot to mention, Dembski was making noise about "putting Darwinists" in a "vice" in a court of law. Then he was the one who took off from the Dover trial before he could be cross-examined himself.

    In contrast, the "darwinists" all stood their ground and testified, blowing the ID/creationist people out of the water.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scinece is authoritative, not democratic.

    Sorry.

    Oh, John Cleese is funny. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Indeed Kaitlin, if science would be democratic, the earth would surely be flat.

    I actually love satire. It is imperative that science, atheism and any public icons thereof can be ridiculed. It should. John Cleese is masterfully arrogant in that matter.

    Maybe they also have some use in a moral debate. You can call Berlusconi a bastard and get away with it. There, it maybe shows a lack of education.

    But if you start a scientific debate, insults are called "ad hominem" and clearly show that you don't have anything reasonable to say. Period.

    Now, it also reminded me of a certain verse in a certain book...
    But whoever says, "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt 5:22).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dan,
    Trying to demonize science merely trivializes your faith based worldview. You should know better than this. Science is science. Religious faith is religious faith.

    Robert Boyle found himself constantly criticised by Thomas Hobbes and others even though he had absolute proof of his gas laws, etc.

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, is noted for claiming science leads to morality's corruption. He hated science.

    William Blake in his paintings and writings, reacted strongly against the work of Isaac Newton.

    We could go over how the discoveries discoveries of Galileo were vehemently opposed by the religious.

    You are just another in a line of ant-science fundamentalists.

    I wonder why you react in such a shrill manner. Oh, yeah, science has proven the bible was not meant to be read literally. I almost forgot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Froggie,

    Trying to demonize science merely trivializes your faith based worldview. You should know better than this. Science is science

    Nice try by misrepresenting my position. Get this straight once and for all. I LOVE SCIENCE!!!

    What I don't like is the presuppositions and biased against God that the SECULAR scientists have. They are trying to strangle hold simple common sense and hijack our educational system to teach false things. The Secular Scientists are liars for science. They do not represent the objectivity of science they represent the common subjectivity of man.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "They are trying to strangle hold simple common sense and hijack our educational system to teach false things."

    There are treatments for paranoia.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Froggie,

    There are treatments for paranoia.

    I have tried the atheistic "medicine" in the past, but I was cured of the many side effects a while ago. Thank the Lord Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I LOVE SCIENCE!!!

    *waves hand in exaggeratedly calm manner*

    "This is not the science you are looking for..."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan, do you honestly believe the 99%+ of scientists in relevant fields of evolution such as biology and earth sciences are deliberately lying to push an atheistic or secular agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here is a very interesting article on why people are anti-science.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, Dan with torture devices "loves science" until that powerful method is trained on human origins...and then he brings in his own Bible based presuppositions and claims that all the fossil and genomic data are an atheistic conspiracy perpetuated by Al Gore to destroy Jesus. Dan, we've shown over and over that you don't understand biology, so if you really love science, perhaps you should read something other than David Berlinski. Do you know how many institutions he was fired from? He even brags about this in his crap book "The Devil's Delusion".

    ReplyDelete
  13. I made the mistake of watching the whole Berlinski interview. I need to take a shower now. What a snake. He isn't even qualified to shine the shoes of Dawkins or Dennett, if you just want to go by their relative contributions to their respective fields. Berlinksi used to lie about his doctorate, claiming before it was in mathematics, while it is really in philosophy. His contributions? Three articles in crummy philosophy journals and a couple of books that won't garner a footnote in the history of piffle. Dawkins' selfish gene and extended phenotype ideas are widely cited and used in the evolutionary biology community. There was recently a conference about the extended phenotype idea, and the conclusion was that Dawkins' idea is correct and the most useful explanation for how selection acts on behavior. Berlinski can do nothing except namecall. That's all I've seen him do. Dan, your not exactly surrounding yourself with the sharpest minds here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What I don't like is the presuppositions and biased against God that the SECULAR scientists have.

    Oh, and I thought it was a pixie that fucked up my sequencer. How silly of me. Must have been God who was angry at me because I worked on sabbath...
    Tell me, where exactly do you need God in science?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "They are trying to strangle hold simple common sense and hijack our educational system to teach false things."

    What is your definition of common sense?

    ReplyDelete
  16. @kaitlyn,

    "Dan, do you honestly believe the 99%+ of scientists in relevant fields of evolution such as biology and earth sciences are deliberately lying to push an atheistic or secular agenda?"

    Are you aware of the scientific data showing that abortion brings about general health and wellbeing not only to the mother, but to the aborted child, and indeed society as a whole? It also removes carbon dioxide from the air, petroleum from the water, and prevents ice from melting. Who knew that science would show how great abortion really is??

    Oh wait, I am just bringing my own presupposition in to push my secular agenda as an evil baby killer. My other secular agenda is to make a damn monkey out of man!!!! Hahahahahaha! All we have to do is make all those ATGC's come out really similar to chimps and churches will start falling to the ground!! Well, I suppose if people didn't have conspiracy theories...they would have no theories at all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan,
    "What I don't like is the presuppositions and biased against God that the SECULAR scientists have."

    No Dan, the fact that science is filling in the gaps that were once attributed to God is merely a side effect of science.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anna Sethe said...

    "Tell me, where exactly do you need God in science?"

    I posed this question to one of Finland's most vocal philosophers against "dogmatic natural sciences" when I attended a talk of his. His sincere hope was that these prisoners of ivory towers would open up the gates that were welded shut when they decided to subscribe to their naturalistic dogma. Below is a abridged version of a stupidly extended exchange:


    Me:
    "...what concrete benefit would including God and other supernatural elements bring to our current scientific inquiry. In other words, why should the "gates" be opened."

    Anti-naturalist professor:
    "Because."


    I was very disappointed. Let's see if Dan can do better!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kaitlyn and Clostridiophile have dealt with Dan adequately here I think.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think it's rather a good question, Dan: what role would you have God ply in science?

    Assuming God created everything, and that science is merely the study of the material aspects of that something...

    ... isn't science the study of God's handiwork?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anna Sethe,

    Tell me, where exactly do you need God in science?

    How about in all of it. It has been shown many times the necessity of presupposing God's revealed truth in order to attain to knowledge of anything- from chemical composition of water to the way of salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It has been shown many times the necessity of presupposing God's revealed truth in order to attain to knowledge of anything- from chemical composition of water

    Wait... what? Why is God's revealed truth necessary for us to understand the composition of water?

    Are you gonna quote scripture? Or do you have something significant which which to back up this seemingly ridiculous assertion?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Whateverman,

    Everyone knows that the chemical bond is really just jesus holding onto two nuclei. Dan with torture devises after his name is clearly VERY delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Clos,

    Dan with torture devises after his name is clearly VERY delusional.

    Speaking of torture devices...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Speaking of torture devices...

    aka. "I can't support my previously unsubstantiated opinion, and will thus ignore requests to do so."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wem,

    Why is God's revealed truth necessary for us to understand the composition of water?

    It has been asked of you many many times, then how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will hold?

    ReplyDelete
  27. It has been asked of you many many times, then how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will hold?

    And you've been told many many times that there is no such thing as "universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic".
    Common sense tells you that nothing can be two different things at the same time. Electrons can.
    Science is interested in explaining the world we live in. Models that can predict events are kept. Absolutivity is absolutely not necessary. Maybe there is a god, maybe not. But as long as he doesn't move every single particle in the world with his own fingers, science should focus on the natural world and leave God out of it. If you want to talk about God, call it theology and take care that you don't reduce your deity to a 'god of the gaps'.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan waffled by saying "It has been asked of you many many times, then how do you account for the universal {edit: snipped for brevity}"

    So, you're not going to answer the question? God's revealed truth is necessary for us to understand chemistry, but you're not going to say why?

    Oh well - we all sorta knew that, despite your claims otherwise, you weren't interested in science. Thanks for providing such an obvious example of this.

    You should title this blog Debunking Dan

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why is God's revealed truth necessary for us to understand the composition of water?

    It has been asked of you many many times, then how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will hold?


    Jack and Jake walk through halls of the asylum, when suddenly, Jack finds a pen on the ground. He cries out: "A sign of Hewhaj! Worship this pen!"

    Jake looks abashed: "Why should I worship this pen?"

    Jack looks insulted: "Because Hewhaj, our saviour, left it here for us as a sign of his eternal goodness!"

    Jake is not convinced: "But, someone must have lost it here!"

    Jack replies: "Is that your theory? Can you prove it?"

    Jake is honest: "euh... no, I can't exactly ... prove ... it, but..."

    Jack is firm: "See, I knew it. Then you have no right to speak and I am right, you ungrateful. Worship it, or Hewhaj will never save you from this asylum."

    ReplyDelete
  30. "It has been asked of you many many times, then how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will hold?"

    You pose what you think is a self-evident truth, yet you miss a key point: even if it were to be granted that logic and order in the universe requires a god...who's to say that you have chosen the correct one? If you have chosen wrong, you may be worse off than me by worshipping a false idol (perhaps other gods are even more jealous than Jesus and his father/himself).

    ReplyDelete
  31. Not only that, Clos, but Dan has shown a willingness to accept logic regardless of whether the person it comes from believes in Dan's God, or that a deity is the source of logic/reason.

    So he's being disingenuous when he asserts his God is required for truths like "the water molecule is made up of 1 oxygen and 2 hydrogen atoms".

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan +†+ said...

    Clos,

    Dan with torture devises after his name is clearly VERY delusional.

    Speaking of torture devices...

    Dan, I have to ask: WTF? What point are you trying to make with that link? Did you just stumble on that video, or where you looking for something like that?

    Geez, I'm starting to think you must literally hate professors or something.

    Yeah, you must hate "Secular" science all right...

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>