http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126975.800-how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda.html?DCMP=OTC-rss
Red flag number one: the term "scientific materialism". "Materialism" is most often used in contrast to something else - something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.
The invocation of Cartesian dualism :lulz: - where the brain and mind are viewed as two distinct entities, one material and the other immaterial - is also a red flag. And if an author describes the mind, or any biological system for that matter, as "irreducibly complex", let the alarm bells ring.
Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense.
When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and "biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind, random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as "astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism".
Those are all the things that throw my red flags up.
I just got an idea: what if I started throwing these words into my conversations just to fuck with people? :lulz:
I can usually tell by the face.
That and the fact that religious people tend to avoid me like they'd avoid an ebola-yeti :lulz:
Quote from: Kai on March 04, 2009, 03:27:56 PM
I just got an idea: what if I started throwing these words into my conversations just to fuck with people? :lulz:
:lulz: Do it.
Hell yes!
BTW, Michael Egnor's most recent rant at the Discovery Institute manages to hit all of these except for the one about quantum physics. I guess he couldn't manage to fit it in. Plus there is the fact that his religious agenda isn't exactly hidden.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/03/an_open_letter_to_the_society_2.html
I especially loved this part:
QuoteIf you're not careful, "creationists" (80% of Americans) might notice this irony: you boycott their states, but you forgot to boycott their money. If one percent of the people you've censored and boycotted wrote letters to their congressmen demanding a defunding of evolutionary research -- a boycott of you -- the grant money currently allocated to advancing Darwinist ideology (it's ideologues, not scientists, who censor) would be re-allocated to genuine non-ideological science.
That's right. Let's cut off all biological funding because it hurts your god's feelings. :horrormirth:
Kai, you have to! and i want to too, but ill need a list up my sleeve :P
Biggest red flag for me:
Big Metal T's
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/cross-necklace-6.jpg)
What does the T stand for, anyway? Anybody know?
I think the lower case t is short for trash, that or its a symbol derived from the act of shitting from the mouth.
I'm so out of touch with slang that I can't tell if you guys are tongue in cheek or serious.
The tongue never leaves the cheek. thatsth why I shlurr all the time. :fap:
Quote from: The Pariah on March 05, 2009, 03:02:04 AM
Biggest red flag for me:
Big Metal T's
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/cross-necklace-6.jpg)
I have been known to wear big metal T's from time to time. They are useful for putting faithfools at ease which helps facilitate the whole - looking terribly upset and or running away screaming - spectacle which, after all, is the sole reason their god put the fuckers on my planet in the first place.
Oh, PLEASE, CUT FUNDING. Yes yes, see, this is how I want it to go.
I want them to get a taste of their own medicine, and by medicine I mean leeches and bloodletting.
Those fuckers. The next time a fundie starts trying to jab to me I'm gonna ask "enjoying your pre-19th century alchemic "medicine"?" Cause they deserve that, honestly.
In fact, I want to spam the DI with letters about that. Fuck them. Fuck them all.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 04, 2009, 06:45:00 AMAnd if an author describes the mind, or any biological system for that matter, as "irreducibly complex", let the alarm bells ring.
actually, if they argue the opposite, act like they got it all figured out, is when my alarm bell rings even louder.
though probably because I'm more likely to run into an argument with an Atheist fundie than a Christian fundie.
"Irreducibly complex" is an Intelligent Design code word. It roughly means, we don't know how this system came into existence therefore a magic sky fairy did it. It's a really really complicated argument from ignorance.
What about -
1) Identifying as an movement/ entity with a unique world/ social/cosmological perspective.
2) Relating said entity to a deity from human history.
3) Organizing these views into a 'system' which does not include the uninitiated.
4) Establishing esoteric language and symbols relating exclusively to this entity.
That doesn't sound much like the description of a hidden religious agenda in a scientific article to me.
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2009, 04:15:35 AM
That doesn't sound much like the description of a hidden religious agenda in a scientific article to me.
Getting technical now, are we?
O.K! - INCLUDE - 5) Making no associations with religion as an entity in all of said entity's propaganda.
I guess I assumed that part.
One could also add - curiously deriding religion in the process.
KILL ME for straying from the precise object/ point of the O.P., because that is absolute heresy on this board.
Your point is inscrutable.
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2009, 04:50:56 AM
Your point is inscrutable.
Nice. That's a sharp blade, She-Warrior of Eris.
What's that medallion around your neck?
What are those tomes you refer to endlessly?
What's this chamber we're in?
What's the point?
I was, as usual, striving more for INDIRECT.
I mean, 90% (at least) of the people on this board are devout atheists, and take great pleasure in mocking any sort of religious faith/spirituality. I feel like that's a separate topic from religious propaganda disguised as scientific literature, which is worthy of mockery IMO, as is almost any kind of evangelism. Including atheist evangelism.
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on March 07, 2009, 05:13:27 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2009, 04:50:56 AM
Your point is inscrutable.
Nice. That's a sharp blade, She-Warrior of Eris.
What's that medallion around your neck?
What are those tomes you refer to endlessly?
What's this chamber we're in?
What's the point?
I was, as usual, striving more for INDIRECT.
But it WAS. I am not the least blunt person you know, am I? Sometimes I need a less indirect route to the point. Refer to my previous post for my thoughts on this topic.
I feel like this subject could use more exploration in its own thread. As much as I like making fun of people for things I do or don't believe in, I also don't like the idea of Discordianism turning into Pastafarianism.
Sometimes the tongue in my cheek interferes with my communication skills. :(
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2009, 05:16:56 AM
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on March 07, 2009, 05:13:27 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2009, 04:50:56 AM
Your point is inscrutable.
Nice. That's a sharp blade, She-Warrior of Eris.
What's that medallion around your neck?
What are those tomes you refer to endlessly?
What's this chamber we're in?
What's the point?
I was, as usual, striving more for INDIRECT.
But it WAS. I am not the least blunt person you know, am I? Sometimes I need a less indirect route to the point. Refer to my previous post for my thoughts on this topic.
Oh, that ONE where you rave bloody death shit wielding a butcher's knife and blow torch?
I'll think Hemingway from now on... Well, maybe haiku with just a little cut-up method thrown in.
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2009, 05:20:15 AM
Sometimes the tongue in my cheek interferes with my communication skills. :(
I'll refrain from all of the body part and orifice thoughts this statement leads my mind to...
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 07, 2009, 02:12:52 AM
"Irreducibly complex" is an Intelligent Design code word. It roughly means, we don't know how this system came into existence therefore a magic sky fairy did it. It's a really really complicated argument from ignorance.
Irreducible complexity is a actually perfectly valid concept, involving something that cannot possibly have evolved because mutation could not have led to it.
That there is a complete lack of examples of irreducibly complex changes, illustrates just how strong the current model is.
Quote from: Requia on March 07, 2009, 06:55:58 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 07, 2009, 02:12:52 AM
"Irreducibly complex" is an Intelligent Design code word. It roughly means, we don't know how this system came into existence therefore a magic sky fairy did it. It's a really really complicated argument from ignorance.
Irreducible complexity is a actually perfectly valid concept, involving something that cannot possibly have evolved because mutation could not have led to it.
That there is a complete lack of examples of irreducibly complex changes, illustrates just how strong the current model is.
Yeah, which is the crux of it. The things they usually cite, like wings, eyes, hearts, the human brain, and sometimes even the flagellar apparatus (which if there is any candidate for a "irreducably complex" organ, that would be it) but there is always some well explainable trail of common ancestors and related taxa and /genetic evidence/ that show a clear path towards each organ. Darwin struggled with this and wrote the greater portion of a chapter in On the Origin addressing this particular issue. He was able to provide a pathway for the evolution of the vertebrate eye without any knowlege of the mechanism.
Quote from: OtOoS, Chapter VI, pgIt is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?
Darwin even went so far as to suggest the deep homology of the Arthropod, Molluskan and Vertebrate eyes we now know is true with genetic evidence.
Speaking of the irreducably complexity of the flagellum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irVqVKdiohE
:lulz:
BTW, New Scientist just pulled this article because they "received a complaint about the contents of this story." Spineless mother fuckers. :argh!:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 04, 2009, 06:45:00 AM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126975.800-how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda.html?DCMP=OTC-rss
Red flag number one: the term "scientific materialism". "Materialism" is most often used in contrast to something else - something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.
The invocation of Cartesian dualism :lulz: - where the brain and mind are viewed as two distinct entities, one material and the other immaterial - is also a red flag. And if an author describes the mind, or any biological system for that matter, as "irreducibly complex", let the alarm bells ring.
Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense.
When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and "biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind, random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as "astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism".[/b]
This, and especially the first and last points in particular, is, in large part, one of the things that I was talking about HERE (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20155.0)
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 12, 2009, 12:07:29 AM
:fnord: :fnord: God Does Not Remove the Terror of Science!!!! :fnord: :fnord:
Many people cling to the belief of a divine (or, in the case of some cults, alien) creator with the idea that if this creator is real, then it will somehow make the world "meaningful" or somehow "explain" existence. Well, i don't know what to believe, but I know that the existence or non-existence of God won't change the meaninglessness of our existence one bit either way!
Are "the Sims" meaningful?!? They had an intelligent creator!!!!!
A divine creator doesn't solve anything, it just moves it somewhere else! So what if God created the universe? So what if we were made for a reason? Where did the creator come from?!? What is his reason?!?!?!?!?.
Sooner or later everything boils down to something arbitrary! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma) Everything falls apart, either one way, or another! A meaningless creator does not a meaningful universe make! GOD DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF SCIENCE!!!!!
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 12, 2009, 04:01:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 12, 2009, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 12, 2009, 12:45:43 PM
Cool position, I can relate but what's with the "terror" of science? I just don't get the terror factor.
I think it was a play on the Subgenius Dictum "Science does not remove the terror of the Gods".
It is indeed a reference to that aphorism, but it is also a reference to many people's aversions to the implications of many scientific concepts and ideas (evolution, thermodynamics, reductionism (especially as applied to biology and psychology), the big bang/cosmology, et cetera), and the general idea/implication that humanity (and, indeed, the universe itself) is just a coincidence and has not been afforded any special role or status in the cosmos
Actually, now I think of it, I guess that my point was more that even if the first and last disguised ID claims were true, it would still be the same as if they weren't, just as arbitrary and meaningless... or something... This is worded really badly and probably obsucres my point more than clarifying it...