Lists Home |
Date Index |
Aw come on, the moral/cultural relativists (you know, the ones who paved
this path) are always right. Except when they don't want to be :)
it is funny to watch...
Doug Rudder wrote:
> And you're reading more into what I said than is actually there. It's funny
> how everyone is right, everyone is more right than everyone else, and
> everyone's perceptions and interpretations of others' motives are really
> based on their own biases (I do not exempt myself).
> For me this part of thread is closed. It does not belong on xml-dev and I
> won't be drawn further into vitriolic dialogue (unless, of course, it is
> about the one true science/religion of this forum: XML :-) ).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Melton [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 11:37 AM
> To: Doug Rudder
> Cc: 'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'; 'Alan Gutierrez'; email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
> At 8/12/2005 07:50 AM, Doug Rudder wrote:
>>This is the single most offensive post I've ever read (which is a shame
>>since it comes from someone I've always respected).
> You don't get out much, do you ;^)
> (No offense intended! It's just that I have seen vast numbers of vastly
> more offensive posts, many of them condemning me to an eternity of agony in
> the name of a benevolent and loving deity in which the poster believes.)
>>One can make (and many scientists have made) a solid, logical, and
>>truly scientific argument that evolutionary theory itself is more
>>religion than science.
> Yeah, this is the same tired old argument that I hear from the creationists
> all the time. When the current US administration hauls out its "many
> scientists" who dispute whatever it is that the rich and conservative
> dislike, everybody is supposed to cower and say "oh, there is such dissent
> in the scientific community about this subject that we'd better not make a
> decision about it". Bull! Scientific American (not exactly the most
> liberal publication on the planet) recently reported that some very large
> number of scientists (I don't recall the exact number, but I think that it
> was well over 500) whose first name was "Steve" signed a letter stating that
> their research supported the position that human activities were greatly
> aggravating, if not actually causing, global warming. Since, as S.A.
> reported, some very small percentage of the male population in the USA is
> named "Steve", that suggests that a very, very large number of scientists
> are in agreement with that statement. While that proves nothing in and of
> itself, it demonstrates that hauling out "many scientists" means absolutely
>>Your comments are extremely religious in nature; you've taken unproven
>>theory and portrayed it as the One Truth,
> I take no position on what Len may or many not have said, but very, very few
> scientists whom I know treat evolution (or for that matter, gravity!) as
> "the One Truth". That's why "the theory of evolution" and "the theory of
> gravity" are common terms in scientific literature. Instead, the vast
> majority of scientists not employed by the current US administration (and,
> for that matter, the vast majority of them...they're just not allowed to
> express their opinions--ain't freedom a wonderful thing?) say that "the
> theory of evolution is the best way put forward to explain the observed
> facts about the relationships between living things". But they are
> virtually all committed to continuing to gather facts, to revise their
> theories to accommodate new observations, etc.
> This is in absolute contrast to the Creationists, who say "this one book is
> absolute truth, and I know so because I believe it to be so", therefore all
> of the facts on the ground are unpersuasive.
>>condemning all other
>>positions as superstitions and its practitioners as mindless, evil,
>>"hideously perverse" morons instead of caring parents and intelligent
> Actually, I believe that caring parents and intelligent human beings can be
> incredibly blind to the ignorance they possess and try to inflict on others.
> Is that evil? Well, some people call wolves evil, others call sharks evil.
> Is it mindless? I think that blind belief in something on the sole basis of
> "I believe it" or "you have to have faith" is, in fact, mindless.
>>I guess what is most disappointing is that someone who seems to
>>advocate broad thinking could be so narrow minded and spiteful. So much
>>for scientific method and objectivity. This is the "I'm right and
>>you're stupid so shut up" method of argument.
> Did Len actually say that? I may have missed it, so I cannot refute it.
> But that is exactly what the Creationists say to the scientists whose
> research supports evolution as the best known description of the
> relationships between living organisms: We are a lot of people, and we
> believe that this one book is absolute truth, and we don't want our kids to
> be exposed to anything that disagrees with it, so shut up (or we'll do harm
> to you).