It appears that you're new here. If you like this content, subscribe to my feed via RSS or Email and you can keep up with all the new posts.If you aren't sure how to use an RSS feed, read this post.
Comments have been turned off due to the large amounts of hate mail and “you’re stupid” type comments disguised as science. You proved my point!
** Off Topic Post
Ever notice how some things are beyond question? The simple act of questioning certain ideas puts you in a class or group of people considered to be ignorant, absurd, kooky, or just plain stupid.
Try questioning the “only invest in broad based mutual funds” mantra and you’re labeled as too risk tolerant. But you can question it and still be accepted as a reasonable person in most circles.
If you question the man made global warming crowd, you’re labeled as “ignoring the evidence.” But you can question it and still be accepted as a reasonable person in most circles.
Question the “Republicans/Democrats/Libertarians only care about corporate business” line, and you’re labeled as either not caring for the poor or despising the working classes. But you can question those ideas and still be accepted as a reasonable person in most circles.
Merely suggest that there are times that it’s better to invest in the stock market and you’re labeled a “market timer.” But you can still be accepted as a reasonable person in most circles.
Why is it that if you question certain dogmas, doctrines, beliefs, rules of thumb, ideologies, theories, or generally accepted ideas, that you instantly get labeled? Sometimes you’re even called an “extremist!” *Gasp* But–even if you do question those beliefs, most people will still accept you as a generally reasonable person.
I thought if something was true, no one worried that another person would question it. Questions were and are welcomed. If one scientist finds a cure for cancer, he WANTS to be questioned and tested. If another scientist finds a way to achieve cold fusion, he WANTS others to question and experiment with his ideas. They don’t (and shouldn’t) get bent out of shape when someone wants to investigate their claims and possibly present evidence to the contrary.
But there is one dogma that no one is allowed to question. Just by doing so, you risk ruining your career. Question it in the wrong class in college and your GPA could be damaged. You risk being scorned, ridiculed, and even excoriated on some web sites if you question this belief. You’re accused of being a zealot, of having a detrimental effect on the minds of children, or of trying to take society back 300 years. All because you question something doesn’t make sense. Oh, and if it doesn’t make sense to YOU, then you must be a simple minded fool. Never mind the PhD, the MBA, the years of advanced study. Question this belief and your education is in question. Some people even question whether you should be allowed to have and teach your own children if you don’t toe the line.
If the video doesn’t work, you can find it at this website as well.
If you liked this post, would you consider buying me a cup of coffee? Sphere: Related Content
Stumble It!
Leave your comment here:
You can also subscribe by Email -- Thank you!
you can still take care of them, even if you're not there.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try searching here:
My StumbleUpon Page
The Wisdom Journal is for entertainment purposes only. Please consult with a competent professional before acting on any advice found on this or any other website.
© 2007 The Wisdom Journal, - Daily Blog Tips Themes
This isn’t a post about religion and about your beliefs and thoughts about Christianity. (When you say Christian do you think “evil or ignorant?”)
This was a post about the inability to question anything to do with the origins of life. Try being a school teacher that believes in Intelligent Design (as do many PhD scientists and scholars). TRY teaching an alternate viewpoint in a school. Simply the ACT of questioning will cost you your job.
Talk about intolerance.
People believe what they want to believe and will defend it at all costs. If necessary they will shout in anger and resort to violence. The ego often can not stand to be wrong and will justify itself against all logic and scientific evidence. It will even lie to itself.
I could not agree with your post more.
You are correct, the post was not about Religion and perhaps I came off rather harsh, sorry
Having been raised in a mostly Catholic family I assure you that to me most Christians seem misguided, not evil. Although much damage can be done by someone with good intentions.
As far as questioning the origins of life, feel free to investigate all you want. But remember that studying one side of an issue is NOT research. Find out why so many people believe that Darwin was right and that intelligent design is laughable.
I understand and believe me, there have been some misguided Christians in the world. Let’s not paint with too broad a brush, though, fair enough?
The problem I have with Religious Darwinism (my term) is that it only looks at one side of the issue as well and has muscled control of our school systems to the point that any opposing idea is met with scorn, hatred, even threats of termination and funding withdrawal. Sounds like we’re back in the Puritanical times in reverse! The Religious Darwinists look at the issue from only one side and attempt to thoroughly stamp out any opposition by relying on the courts and the media.
Keep in mind also that the film is written by a Jew, not a Christian.
Also keep in mind that tens of thousands of highly educated, highly intelligent people also believe in intelligent design and laugh at the Religious Darwinists.
The main problem people have with intelligent design is that by default, it includes a “designer.” The next question is who? Then the next question is, “Do I have any responsibility to this designer?” Most people who reject intelligent design, do so because they demand to see the designer or because they cannot handle the weight of knowing that they will ultimately have to give an account for their lives.
Asking for someone to prove there is a designer is like me asking you to prove yo love your wife. “Show” me what love is, put it in a bottle and show it to me. You can say that you do things for her and I can say that you do it only for yourself so she won’t nag you. You can say that you have a physical relationship with her, but I can say you do that to only satisfy your own desires. Anything you say, I can counter. We get no where.
All the movie is espousing is that we need to be able, here in a supposedly “free” country, to debate, discuss, and question the standard lines fed to us by the courts, the media, and the school systems. If intelligent design is so easily countered, what do the Religious Darwinists have to fear?
Thanks you Mr Anderson. I’ll have to check into this book.
Oh, and cry persecution all you want, personally I have no fear of debating the issue.
LOL! Now that’s funny. You want to evaluate every proponent of intelligent design. That cracks me up.
The whole problem with evolution is that all evidence is forced to fit the theory rather than letting the evidence dictate the theory.
Proponents of intelligent design do not say their model is true because evolution cannot explain everything. They are saying that real, observable scientific data fits the design model better than evolution does. Even evolutionists commonly refer to evolution as “designing” different species. What, are they in denial?
Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution is not an attempt to force “religious dogma” on others. Since when have archeology, geology, biology, biochemistry, statistical probability and thermodynamics been matters of religious dogma? It is evidence from these fields of study that intelligent design advocates want brought to the science class. Yet proponents of evolution continue to pretend it is a religious issue. And the evolutionary theory alone continues to be taught as fact in schools without an argument being heard against it. Who is brainwashing whom here?
Oh, and the reference to the flying spaghetti monster is typical of the evolutionist method of operation of claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is insane, stupid, blinded, or a simpleton. This post was about the inability or unwillingness of the evolution crowd to even consider that their pet theory was anything but a perfect and flawlessly established science.
Oh yeah, I’m not afraid to debate the issue either, so long as it stays on the issue. Your comment made it through the moderation queue, didn’t it?
“They are saying that real, observable scientific data fits the design model better than evolution does.” In what way? Show me some data.
“Even evolutionists commonly refer to evolution as “designing” different species. What, are they in denial?” No, in my opinion you are willfully misinterpreting them.
“And the evolutionary theory alone continues to be taught as fact in schools without an argument being heard against it.” That is an exaggeration. If it were being taught as fact it would be the Law of Evolution (like the Law of Gravity)not the Theory. It is being taught as the system which best explains the facts as we know them. Show me the data that shows that should be changed.
My opinion is that Intelligent Design is not science, but I don’t have any interest in supressing people who want to say it is. I just don’t think its proponents have any real case to scream about persecution.
Just show me ONE government school system where anything but evolution is taught (and I’ll show you one that is about to be sued).
Evidence is all around you. YOU are the evidence. It all depends on how you interpret the evidence.
We all start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions, which becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Two people can argue about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses. It really doesn’t matter if I present evidence. It will be interpreted to fit the presupposition.
It’s not until people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses. I’d challenge you to prove that evolution is not true, just for kicks. They say you don’t really understand an issue until you can argue both sides intelligently.
Religious Evolutionists are generally incapable of putting on the other set of glasses and wish to destroy any other set that challenges them. Just TRY teaching anything but evolution. Just try. Just try asking a question such as, how DID lightning magically animate mud? How did we go from asexual to sexual? How did we manage to have a 2 million nucleotide difference from our “nearest relative” the chimps, when ANY incorrect combination of those 2 million nucleotides results in death? How did plants and animals evolve from the same lightning animated mud? Why did different animals in the exact same environment evolve differently? Ask those questions and you are branded, scorned, and banished from teaching. Just for asking the question. I’d call that persecution.
I personally know teachers in public school systems that have been warned to NEVER ask any question that puts evolution in doubt at the risk of losing their jobs. THAT IS persecution.
Here’s a short list of a few scientists for you to check out:
But don’t take their intelligence for granted, look them all up.
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Paleontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006)
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Paleontologist
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt wise, Paleontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology