Ok, how about Dr Mengele? Unit 731? Tuskeegee Syphilis study?
The situation has come up and continues to come up; if you didnt realize that, you havent been paying attention.
And we dealt with those by enacting controls to ban them(and killed a bunch of Nazis in response to the first). If you haven't noticed that, then you haven't been paying attention.
Influence != block. It's also worth noting that they're a large enough voting block to influence road construction or military spending. Do they by default "block" those as well?
Since they don't seem to be trying to rewrite educational guidelines to attack the ideas of road construction and military spending, I would say no. Since they seem to applaud runaway military spending while supporting bans on stem cell research(as an example), I would say no. Are you simply ignoring the political and religious landscape of the US?
There are probably a lot of people in the 47% who know they don't get back what they pay to the government but are still happy getting back whatever they can and expected that to be higher under Obama than under Romney.
It sounds like you are implying that government benefits are the only or main reason that people voted for Obama.
Is there "research" that you feel should off limits, or are you going all in with Dr. Mengele?
When the situation comes up of some researcher asking to experiment on humans ala Mengele, we'll worry about it. Until then, you are just taking an absurdist position which doesn't exist in the real world.
If you do think some research is off limits, why? Because any reason you offer has its foundations in ethics/philosophy, which is inextricably entwined with religion.
That is incorrect. The ethics of secular humanism, for example, require no reference to religion or religious beliefs. Ethics are ultimately based on human behavior and the ways that we interact with each other. It is a common claim that religions have some monopoly on ethics, but that is just not true. And, yes, I would oppose research which required that avoidable harm be inflicted upon developed humans(and certain animals), but I'm certainly not basing that opposition upon some religious foundation.
I am a trained scientist that certainly understands the reality of the 5 billion year old solar system, the evolution of species, and for that matter the truth of global warming. Yet I still believe whole-heartedly in God and practice my faith within the Catholic Church.
So, you claim to believe in Catholicism and understand evolution, yet you fail to see how the dogma of Adam and Eve is directly contradictory to the evolution of the human species?
Ok - what non-religious country in the past one thousand years do you feel pushed/allowed science to advance better than the Christian countries?
What non-religious country has existed in the past one thousand years? Even the officially atheistic countries were only atheistic by government fiat. Only recently have we seen the rise of a dominant organic atheism anywhere in the world. And those states are indeed doing well in advancing science and education. Here in the US, where our level of religiosity is more in line with Islamic countries, we have a serious problem with people attempting to subvert public education, public funding and public research to suit their religious beliefs.
I sincerely hope that the anti-religious folks keep pushing harder and harder against people that have faith. Eventually, you are going to push people to the point where they start speaking up for themselves.
What planet are you on that you think that religious people are not voicing their opposition now? Did you somehow miss the debates, the billboards, the church signs, the youtube videos, the religious forums, the protests, etc?
So what? They're not blocking the science. You aren't less rational or scientific in your thinking just because someone out there believes crazy things.
These people are a large enough voting block to influence public education and government research. So, yes, they very much do block science. Their influence is growing smaller, but it is still a force to be dealt with in the US.
The hypothesis is the prediction.
Now you are talking gibberish. The hypothesis in this case is "god X with properties Y and behaviors Z exists." The prediction is "if god X exists, then based upon the asserted properties and behaviors, we will see measurable effect E." E fails to happen, therefore the initial hypothesis is wrong. Not rocket science.
Do you see how absurd that is? How scientifically illiterate would you have to be to make that statement in earnest?
No, I don't, because it is not.
If you meant something else (as implied by earlier quote) great. Next time, try saying what you mean.
I meant what I said.
Oh, wow, you really fail at reading. My comment was about the definition of "hypothesis".
And my comment was aobut your blanket dismissal. Fail much?
Oh, wow, you ALSO fail at basic science!
Ah, so when a prediction based upon a hypothesis fails to happen, then that somehow upholds the validity of the hypothesis? Someone is failing here, but it's not me.
That isn't even coherent!
Oh, honey, you lack 3rd grade reading skills, too? Maybe I can use smaller words so that woogums can understand it.
If your definition of a god includes the idea that said god interacts with the universe, it's measurable. And if the measurements do not indicate an interaction, then that particular god hypothesis is proven false, and thus MacGyver2210 is vindicated. Only the philosopher's god is immune to such analysis.
Worse than that, it's not even an hypothesis!
I would agree.
What, exactly, do I want both ways? I don't know where you get "bad hypothesis" from. As I clearly stated in my first post, if it's not testable it's not an hypothesis! You seem to agree with that bit. Then again, judging from the rest of your incoherent rambling, you might not understand what that even means.
I was referring to your dismissal of MacGyver2210. Every god hypothesis that is in play in the ID movement(which is the context of this conversation, in case you had forgotten) makes certain claims about the effects that god has upon the universe. Noting that such effects are not in evidence is an effective argument against such ideas. You could just as easily rewrite MacGyver2210's statement as deductive reasoning:
God hypothesis X states that interactions Y and Z happened.
Y and Z did not happen.
Therefore god hypothesis X is not correct.
Assuming that the first living cell was designed, is it unscientific to explore what predictions could be made from that starting assumption?
Yes, because there are none. It will just be ad hoc reasoning("why is the cell like X? Because that is what this god wanted it to be."). And it will degrade further into brainless dogma. The day ID proponents actually come up with some scientific reasoning from their position is the day it becomes a branch of science. Until then, it's just the rear guard of an increasingly discredited worldview.
I believe that a big cause of the entire pushing religion in school is because science has been used to discredit religion or religious teachings. Had this not occurred, or not occurred in science taught in public schools, it would be a non issue. However, as long as little Johny is coming home saying in science we learned that pastor is wrong and God did not create the world, there will be attempts like this to force the ambiguity or uncertainty to scientific theory.
And this is avoided in what manner? Any discussion of science will inevitably destroy religious beliefs which are built upon irrational and unsupported foundations. Science is killing religion by destroying the natural habitat of the gods: ignorance. Once people have a good explanation of a natural event, they no longer need a supernatural explanation. Some still chalk it up to gods, but over time, the number of those who do shrinks.
How the hell should people know for sure what happened billions of years ago or even that it was billions of years ago?
Start with radiometric dating, maybe?
There are just more and less plausible theories that get selected from based on when a few compete and one turns out to be more useful than the other.
And creation mythology is of zero explanatory value. Hence, it is useless in comparison to scientific explanations.
The rule on staying alive as a forecaster is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once. -- Jane Bryant Quinn
