The Fall of Foolish Faith
Victor Stenger

I want to talk about a particular group of secularists -- scientists -- and their interaction with religion. Most scientists prefer to stay out of any conflicts with religion. They don't want to endanger their sources of research funding and generally just don't want to be bothered. They have better things to do, or at least they think they do.

I want to urge those of you who are not scientists to try to convince those who are to stop pussyfooting around with religion and confront the reality of what it is and always has been -- a blight on humanity that has hindered our progress for millennia and now threatens our very existence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-st ... ef=science

Good idea! But I have a feeling that your religion is once again not included (but should be) on your list of religions that threaten our very existence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed ... viet_Union

Stenger, of course, has his own agenda, and it is not just about "science". And his suggestion that religion is threatening our very existence seems to minimize the fact that Scientists have made it possible for the first time in our history for a few men to End Civilization in an afternoon; Scientists who are supposedly atheists. Shouldn't they know better? The sheer intellectual dishonesty of his claim is astounding.

And some may recall that I suggested that Dagny had an agenda when he originally started posting; I appreciate that he is now Up Front about it and not pussyfooting around anymore!

What'd I tell ya? LOL!

NYTimes
Before Wolves May Be Hunted, Science, Faith and Politics Clash
By JAMES GORMAN
Published: March 12, 2012

"Once again, science, religion and politics have become entwined in a thorny public policy debate. This time, however, the discussion is not about abortion, birth control or health insurance mandates. It’s about wolves."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/scien ... .html?_r=1

Not only that, they are now trying to convince scientists they need to be less objective, and spend less time in the lab and more time helping them to destroy the work of ones like me who do not serve their religious agenda. It’s Stalinism all over again. Now that the worthless advice (I once believed) from vigilante educators and protests from followers helped drive me into poverty, I need a new tactic before they find a legal way to finish me off for good.

This is precious:

Gary, what escaped you completely is the irony that the wolves don't give a hoot about politics, religion and treaties with Indians. Should all of us disappear, they would not suffer one little bit unless there is wide spread starvation and diseases or some other calamity. Natural selection would continue its evolutionary path. The claims that Indians have on the land would mean nothing.

Goes to show you that the man made concepts of laws and religions is nothing but crying wolf in face of nature.

In my opinion belief that you have empirical evidence to prove we came from unintelligent “natural cause” when you cannot even produce a testable operational definition for intelligence only highlights the scientific absurdity of your religion. Getting bent out of shape over scientific evidence that “intelligent cause” may be closer to the truth only proves that you are promoting a religion, under the disguise of science, and the damage done by your beliefs are way way beyond any damage from others because you're so easily able to get away with it.

You by far are the most religions person here, You're devotion to the religious humanist doctrine won't be questioned by anyone. But just for my curiosity how would react if someone like myself found it beneficial to kill off or thin out a population of your relations, the monkeys?

[cursing myself for even asking, but] What is the scientific evidence that ID is closer to the truth? The unfinished, unpublished, uncited, unreviewed, and largely unreadable paper+computer program that you wrote? Which is just a prime example of you quoting yourself to make your point.

This is a summary of Gary's science:

Q: Where did you get your definition of intelligence?
A: I made it up.

Q: Why didn't you use an existing definition of intelligence?
A: They were insufficient.

Q: How?
A: They didn't support my conclusion.

Q: Why don't you discuss other definitions of intelligence to demonstrate why they are insufficient?
A: If people want to know that, they can look it up themselves.

Q: Normally, a research paper cites all their sources, why didn't you?
A: Its unreasonable to ask me to cite every source. You're just trying to sandbag scientific progress.

Q: Can I assume its been published and properly vetted by the science community?
A: Yes.

Q: Which journal?
A: planet-source-code.com - Its currently rated "5 globes" by the REAL science community.

Q: planet source code.... dot com?
A: DAMMIT!!! Some jerk just rated it "1 globe" and tanked my ratings. I am so sick and tired of getting kicked in the teeth by these bullies!

Q: Um... planet source code dot com is not a scientific journal. How do you know the anonymous users are who you think they are?
A: There are lots of REAL scientists using and supporting my work.

Q: Who?
A: I'm not telling.

Q: Why?
A: I must protect them from getting "1 globed," too.

Q: I don't think that will happen.. Science isn't judged based on an anonymous globe ranking system.
A: What? Without anonymous rankings, how does anyone know if its good science or not? <shrugs>

Q: Uh... anyways... your work seems to be about an intelligently programmed genome. What is your background in genetics?
A: I took a number of baby-sitting and cooking classes in high school. Then there was that 70's era hobby robotics book I read.
[Seriously, go read the bees and brains thread]

Q: Where do you currently do your research?
A: On the library computer. There is no pay wall for PNAS papers. Or TED talks.

Q: Do you do any lab research at all?
A: You know, its unreasonable to ask scientists to have the money to afford lab equipment or lab time.

Q: What exactly is the evidence to support your ideas, then?
A: Well, a lot of abstracts I read use the circuit analogy to describe a genome. And e. coli bacteria communicate via "communication molecules" - that's a technical term by the way. Baking soda and vinegar react in a predictable manner. Computer programs act in a predictable manner, too. Lightning storms often occur during volcanic eruptions - I have picture around here some place. And.. um... Well Betty Boop is cute and people wear bright feathery hats as an expression of self-identity. And what else ... Apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.
[Seriously, go read his theory]

Q: Wow.
A: Yeah, its impressive. I'm on the edge of some real breakthroughs and I hope to have it in K-12 classrooms soon. But thats only if the anti-science bullies who force me to post my work on internet forums and then answer their questions will ever leave me alone. Galileo and Darwin never had it so rough.

Q: Anything else?
A: Yeah I wrote a VB program that has successfully demonstrates molecular intelligence in a bee's eye.

Q: Really... Does your program use actual biological/genetic data? What species of bee? What specific genes control the bee eye characteristics that you are modeling? Does your program closely predict the genetic variance found within the actual bee population?
A: Look, I am so sick of you religious bullies pushing me around. A PC can't be expected to handle all that information, especially when we don't fully understand how it all works.

Q: But how can you demonstrate molecular intelligence in a bee's eye if you admit that you can't identify which genes interact and how?
A: Save your grand speeches for the clubhouse awards ceremony for the brown-noser of the year award.
[thats a direct quote]

Q: Okay then. Thanks for the interview.
A: No, thank YOU. Call me.

That's a hard act to follow, but Gary surely will. A five-globe interview, Oh Henry.

ABO,

I know you'd like to make humanism and secularism a religion. Doubt you are going to succeed. I understand you are also, trying to turn Objective Reality into subjective reality. Good luck. Meanwhile, I'll cheer my not being bold as a hair style.

DagnyWener



O no, far be it from me to concoct a religion. I can't say I respect your religion even if the government does. I'd just like to know how you sucked it up. Monkey worship, dirt making itself, that type of thing.

Your little cult has all the protections of any religion here in the US


On March 4, 1987, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand, in Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala., ruled that secular humanism is a religion. The 172-page ruling defines religion and concludes, after reviewing the relevant aspects of humanism, that “For purposes of the First Amendment, secular humanism is a religious belief system, entitled to the protections of, and subject to the prohibitions of, the religious clauses.”



I'm trying to understand your reality. As you may recall, posting early on here you had to leave the planet with your ramblings to justify your belief.


Would this indicate you have no hair, or is it just more of your self righteous indignation?

I'm not even going to waste my time answering your defamatory questions that even redefine the word "published" to only include lab research science journals that you approve of. Even if it were already published be a major science journal then your gang would just trash the publisher too, in order to do your best to suppress scientific research that does not serve your religious agenda.

Gary writes
Gary, I don't have a religious agenda, and I doubt if Oh Henry does either. Now, it you were to submit your work to a bona fide, peer-reviewed, major science journal (or even a minor journal provided it's peer-reviewed), and it became accepted and published, I guarantee that you will gain a whole new level of attention and scientific respect, here and elsewhere. Do you think you could make that happen? Or will we instead be treated with another stream of excuses and cries of persecution?