The Levitating Globe and other denials of the earth sciences - what have you come across
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
"Texas Republicans are anti-Copernicus" http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/16/114553/289
this is insane (well, and entertaining). If you've come across anything similar, please share.
Although I can't help but laugh at the sites.
It was very moving.
Then, of course, there's always the good ol' Flat Earth Society: www.theflatearthsociety.org .
Not to mention the good folks who believe that our Mars missions are nothing more than hoaxes.
Ooh, here's a doozy: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm .
OK, I'm done. Just had to deposit my two cents.
The ones that really get me mad are those that should know better. I'm reading Darwinian Fairytales right now and there's a couple I've times I wanted to hurl it against the wall. The author was supposedly a famous Australian philospher; despite his claim that he has "read the literature" he completely misunderstands natural selection, setting up a bunch of straw-man arguments against something that is a lot more like Lamarckism than organic evolution. (I also tend to get annoyed by the use of the term "Darwinism", as if it were a philosophy; nobody calls gravitational theory "Newtonism" or chemistry "Faradayism").
On that note, is the creationsim vs. evolution debate really valid? For that matter, is the God vs. science debate really valid? I have my doubts - one side is focused on cause while the other is focused on process and the whole thing seems misguided and misdirected to me. I suppose that by invoking a divine catalyst the faith folks are trying to explain away the process, but why? If God set the process into motion, don't they want to appreciate His work for what it is? Maybe I'm missing something here, I don't know. I was raised in my great grandfather's pentecostal church, so I should get it, but I don't.
Has anyone heard about the case of the creationist geologist? Here's a link to the article, but you might need an account to read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq... . Holy cow (no pun intended) - I don't even know what I think about that.
Edited for re-wording.
Thanks for the link to the Creationist paleontologist. You may have heard of George McReady Price, a Creationist geologist from the 1920s. Many of his books and papers still turn up in Creationist web sites and publications.
But in saying all of that, I realize that this is about protecting one's way of life and values and such, so I can see why they fight so fervently for what they believe in. But in the end there's no absolute truth to prove or disprove, if we actually could. It's all about values. Therefore, there's no right or wrong except as one labels it for oneself. It's kind of a Schrodinger's cat thing, and the label you place on the cat depends upon how you define "dead" and "alive," or in this case, "right" and "wrong," or "good" and "bad."
There have been several creationist and intelligent design discussions on LT. I can think of three off hand. These are all pretty old, but interesting.
1. Christianity : and its Compatability with Science
2. Evolve! : Is Darwinism bad science today? (with a funny comment here, see comments 36 to 40: http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=240 )
3. Book talk: Books on Intelligent Design Theory
Well, some arguments are scientific and some are not. But there is also "science vs religion" argument. I find this screwy because science is a method, it's not a belief system. But maybe that argument has no right or wrong answer.
Thanks for the links to those discussions. Interesting stuff, but I feel exhausted after reading all that. A lot of passionate energy goes into these debates.
I look at it this way: religious folks have their faith, and that's all they need (in theory). It doesn't explain anything and it doesn't require truthing: you just accept it. Scientists use the method to explain processes, and where possible, causes. But the method can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or a divine catalyst so it isn't something for us to be concerned with.
I don't do a very good job of explaining this clearly. I need to work on it some more. Most atheists tell me I sound like an IDer and most religious folks tell me I sound like an atheist, but I label myself a healthily skeptical agnostic who doesn't understand all the hub-bub. Does that put me in a "D" category? I mean, is it possible to be a scientist and an atheist? Shouldn't an honest scientist be willing to admit that we just don't know? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that?
"Please don't think that all people who have faith or belong to organized religion are strict biblical literalists or creationists."
That was not my intention. When I started this thread I was only concerned where religious beliefs clearly contradict the science.
I think in theory a perfect scientist ought to begin atheist. And they should remain that way until they have a need for something like an act of god to explain something. Just a thought. ;)
#15 Helenoel - I think that's pretty much the point that setnahkt was making, assuming I interpreted it correctly. It just isn't as black and white as the debaters paint it. Maybe that's what bothers me the most about the whole debate, after all. It just isn't black and white, as it is usually presented - it's very much a grayscale spectrum.
I like setnahkt's analogy of some folks having higher contrast.
I think we're doing some collective refinement of ideas here, so I didn't take your comments as being defensive. Just thought I'd clarify in case there was any misunderstanding. It's nice that we can discuss controversial topics here in varying shades of diagreement without the discussion digressing to personal insults, isn't it?
Creationism became a political movement because of the moral and political claims of the "Progressives", which the Progressives claimed were derivable from evolution and other recent scientific discoveries. Creationism survives as a political movement for the same reason, even though many of the political and moral claims of the "progressives" are different than they were in the 1920s.