Going deeper into a DI Lie (Politics)

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Friday, October 16, 2009, 13:18 (4639 days ago) @ David Turell

&... > 
> > Goes through the public record to show categorically that Sternberg's claims that he was retaliated and treated badly because of his views on Design are unfounded; 
> I've read the stuff. Thank you for it. See my next note. Read Horowitz. His findings are the real issue.
> Of course Frances Collins breaks the rule, but again, one person is equal to anecdotal.-I would say that considering his profile that the general (and absolute) silence of any voices condemning him for his theological views proves my point. Why attack Behe or Dembski, and not Collins? Answer: Collins didn't try to publish his religious views in scientific journals, and has clearly delineated his views between science and religion. Also, Collins didn't politicize his views. If you play with fire, one would expect to be burned. If there was such a "conspiracy" behind silencing ID, then there should be a huge fight between Collins and the rest of the academic community--just like with other ID authors. Where's the fight? I suppose, he's magically "better connected" than say, Behe, and therefore is safe from the Illuminati! Seriously David? Sarcasm aside, you need to think more deeply about why DI authors face the battles they do. They're "self-made martyrs." -Checked out Horowitz's blog. First entry deals with speech codes, which I know existed at least at one point at Berkeley. (Big shocker there!) I share Penn Gillette's views on that. (See the appropriate BULLSH!T episode on the first amendment.)

\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum