martha said:It's thread like this that make me miss our FYM fundies. I'd love to hear their thoughts on this crap.
It would certainly make this thread a whole lot more exciting.
martha said:It's thread like this that make me miss our FYM fundies. I'd love to hear their thoughts on this crap.
redhotswami said:but isn't part of Catholic ideology embracing science?
Ormus said:
As long as science doesn't get in the way of their traditions.
redhotswami said:What do you mean?
You know, in the unlikely event that you're actually being sincere, that's hardly a good way to solicit a contrasting opinion. Why would anyone want to set forth one when they're being pre-emptively mocked before they've even opened their mouth?martha said:It's thread like this that make me miss our FYM fundies. I'd love to hear their thoughts on this crap.
Originally posted by Axver
It would certainly make this thread a whole lot more exciting.
Ormus said:No "science" in the world will ever negate the Vatican's tendency toward misogyny or homophobia, for instance.
Well, this thread isn't really the place for an involved discussion of this issue (which is bigger than this one thread, and not limited to religious standoffs either, for that matter). But with all due respect, I think you flatter yourself and some others unduly to chalk it all up to "the old heat/kitchen thing." If someone gets soured on this place altogether because they can't handle being the lone advocate for some particular POV, or failing to win anyone over with their arguments on some specific handful of issues out of the many we discuss, then fine, that is indeed their own problem. But if regular expressions of open contempt and hostility are also part of the reason, then that much is a failure of the community here collectively, and has nothing to do with anything so high-minded as what "challenging them" suggests. I would feel the same way about it if FYM happened to be dominated by sociopolitical conservatives and some were falling into a pattern of snide remarks like, "I wonder what some of our resident feminazis think about this policy" or "Well our forum terrorist-lovers must be salivating into their lattes at the latest public opinion polls". Who wants to waste their breath debating someone with that attitude?martha said:I also know that these guys have left FYM because they do feel mocked, and I'm one of the mockers. I think it's the old heat/kitchen thing. If their belief system is so tenous that they can't defend it in light of this kind of issue, then they can go crawling back to the comfort of their own forums and message boards, where no one challenges them and makes them admit that the crap they promote is exclusionary (to be kind) and downright ridiculous (to be honest). This is, above all, a U2 board. I wouldn't go on to one of their Christian boards, post my beliefs, then get all pissy and self-righteous when challenged.
martha said:Actually, I was being sincere. To a point anyway.
Those guys were all over stuff like this, pointing out how their scripture justifies this kind of "thinking." Justifying the replacement of science with their own theology, no matter what. I was hoping to get some kind of answer as to why my own government has caved in to the fascist ways of these people.
I also know that these guys have left FYM because they do feel mocked, and I'm one of the mockers. I think it's the old heat/kitchen thing. If their belief system is so tenous that they can't defend it in light of this kind of issue, then they can go crawling back to the comfort of their own forums and message boards, where no one challenges them and makes them admit that the crap they promote is exclusionary (to be kind) and downright ridiculous (to be honest). This is, above all, a U2 board. I wouldn't go on to one of their Christian boards, post my beliefs, then get all pissy and self-righteous when challenged.
I disagree. This thread is aboiut Christian Fundamentalists run amok, interfering in science and government, injecting their dubious theology into things where it doesn't belong. I think it's a fine place for this discussion.yolland said:Well, this thread isn't really the place for an involved discussion of this issue (which is bigger than this one thread, and not limited to religious standoffs either, for that matter).
I've responded to posts like this myself. Hell, that's what some of these guys have actually said. Thye're constantly making much more insulting remarks and associations.yolland said:I would feel the same way about it if FYM happened to be dominated by sociopolitical conservatives and some were falling into a pattern of snide remarks like, "I wonder what some of our resident feminazis think about this policy" or "Well our forum terrorist-lovers must be salivating into their lattes at the latest public opinion polls". Who wants to waste their breath debating someone with that attitude?
I'm fairly confident that some of the people I'm talking about do indeed think that the ideas being ridiculed here do really make a lot of sense when viewed through their narrow religious prisms. They just aren't around anymore.yolland said:there's no reason to conclude that anyone here in fact has strong disagreements with the opinions (on the thread topic) discussed thus far in the first place.
I just don't hide behind my religion when I express contempt for them. I don't claim to ask WWJD when I say these things.yolland said:But to the extent that you're making a case for open expressions of personal contempt somehow being equivalent to challenging someone through debate and discussion, that, it seems to me, is disingenuous and cheap. We can all do better than that.
But with all due respect, I think you flatter yourself and some others unduly to chalk it all up to "the old heat/kitchen thing."
INDY500 said:in 2004 he said of Bush administration Special Counsel and Ave Maria Law School graduate Scott Bloch.
"Scott Bloch's personnel practices are taken straight from The DaVinci Code rather than the civil service manual."
I'm not even sure what that means except to say that maybe Mr. Ruch shares some of y'all's prejudices against "fundies."
anitram said:
That's quite a conclusion you reached. Logical reasoning.
of coarse being the much more logical conclusion to be reached.The US is becoming the laughing stock of the thinking world.
INDY500 said:
of coarse being the much more logical conclusion to be reached.
MadelynIris said:"This thread is aboiut Christian Fundamentalists run amok"
THIS IS ALL SUCH BULLSHIT.
One can argue against affirmative action and against creationist literature being distributed by a government agency without being a hypocrite. The issue isn't that they are claiming that a Noachian flood carved the Grand Canyon; which is obviously absurd; but that it is being sold at a national park information centre. The US has enshrined the seperation of church and state in it's constitution and has maintained that division a good deal better than most other countries, the downside of not suffering under a state church of paying taxes for religion is that people aren't as put off towards faith, but that is a seperate issue.Irvine511 said:it seems that people who don't believe in evolution, don't.
evolve, that is.
if you don't believe in evolution, you have to give back your opposable thumbs.
seriously, folks. i'm sick of this superstitious bullshit.
and that's what it is. and i find it interesting that, say, we'll get people who whine about, say, Affirmative Action, but then support the right for creationists to be included in the annals of scientific knowledge.
In the LA Times article, then-NPS chief of interpretation for the Pacific Region Deanne Adams made the same assertion. I also looked at PEER's own letter to the NPS Director (.pdf) (alluded to in the press release anitram posted) and, unlike the press release, that letter does not make the accusation that rangers are not allowed to state the age of the Canyon; rather it complains that there's no official training or directives provided to rangers as to how to field questions from creationists specifically, which is quite different from what the press release suggests. (The letter is mostly about the Vail book issue.)The souvenir shop on park grounds is run by the Grand Canyon Association, but the National Park Service approves what may be sold there. The book, which is found in the inspiration section of park bookstores, is a "medium seller," Oltrogge said, with about 300 copies sold since August.
Park rangers are instructed to give a scientific view of the age of the canyon and how it was created, based on currently accepted geology, Oltrogge said. If park visitors raise questions about creationism, rangers are supposed to defer to science, she said. "National Park Service policy on interpretation is to teach current geological science," Oltrogge said, adding: "We also recognize there are other beliefs out there. We don't teach that. We teach current accepted geological science and history. Of course, they get questions during their interpretive sessions. You avoid confrontation."
yolland said:[B They also sell books presenting Native American cosmogonies of the Canyon, which like Vail's book are sold in the inspirational section, not the science section,
PEER's own letter to the NPS Director (alluded to in the press release anitram posted) and, unlike the press release, that letter does not make the accusation that rangers are not allowed to state the age of the Canyon; rather it complains that there's no official training or directives provided to rangers as to how to field questions from creationists specifically, which is quite different from what the press release suggests."
Much ado about nothing then???
So...I think this piece pretty much pushes the issue into black-and-white territory. Either Gil Spencer is lying, or whoever wrote PEER's press release was lying. One way or the other--someone should be ashamed of the risks they're taking with their employer's reputation.Is there a copy of this executive order somewhere? A memo? Has a park ranger been suspended for telling visitors the estimated geological age of the canyon? Fired? Not according to PEER. It provides no evidence that anyone has been ordered to shut up about anything having to do with the geology of the park.
...................................................
I called PEER Tuesday and talked to its director Jeff Ruch. I asked him point blank if park rangers were being punished or otherwise prevented by order of the Bush administration from informing visitors of the geological age of the Grand Canyon.
He admitted they were not. "We are not suggesting (they are) being censored...," he said. "We are not alleging censorship so much as a lack of guidance."
Guidance? If rangers need guidance they can click on the NPS’ own Web site that says the canyon contains a 2-billion-year-old rock record. If the Bush administration is attempting to sell a Bible story and suppress the canyon’s real age, it’s doing a pretty poor job.
Ruch denies that PEER intended the readers of its press release to believe park rangers were being ordered to shut up. "I can’t speak to the impression we left (to readers)," Ruch told me. "What we said was accurate."
No, it wasn’t. Here is what Ruch said in his own press release: "In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology."
.................................................
There is a decent case to be made that any book that proclaims the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 years old shouldn’t be sold on federal property. But that case should be made decently, which is to say honestly.
...Jeff Rook, who wrote the release, said that others have indeed contacted the PEER office and complained of being misled. "If they felt misled by it, we're sorry." There is no intentional obfuscation required when answering questions about the chasm's age in response to creationist queries or pressure. "At least not this week," quips Rook. Rangers and interpretive staff are free to discuss its scientific history with impunity.
The PR rep for the park service, Dave Barna (arguably, not someone PEER trusts all that much, obviously), adamantly told us that the Grand Canyon is as old as scientists say it is, and no-one who works for the park would be asked to say otherwise...
MadelynIris said:Where are the 20 or so folks who posted how outrageous this was?
?
MadelynIris said:
This is worse than Fox news man.
MadelynIris said:Where are the 20 or so folks who posted how outrageous this was?
News just in, it wasn't a meteorite alone, score one for the stamp collectors (obtuse reference to a Alverez quote that was a quote of Rutherford).Justin24 said:My god, we live in a country with a dumb president. I thought Moses did it, or was it the meteor that killed the dino's.