Another excellent article rom Recovering Fundamentalists in their misconceptions about science series:
This misconception is frequently alluded to in Christian circles in an attempt to discount the findings of the scientific community as merely “one man’s opinion.” While there is a constant hum of debate among scientists, Christians seem to think that no one agrees on anything, and that there are no theories that aren’t questionable.
This is not true. The body of accepted scientific knowledge is vast and elegantly interwoven. But this is only accomplished through dialog and criticism.
From Watching the Deniers:
The paranoid style of American politics: Beck, Limbaugh claim oil spill deliberate sabotage
To quote Limbaugh:
But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.”
In short, the Obama administration deliberately sabotaged the Deep Horizon oil rig to create a disaster that would allow them to… I’m not sure. Provide an excuse for the cap-and-trade legislation? Blunt efforts for more offshore drilling of the coasts of the US?
I call this the “I’m just saying…” approach to conspiracy theory making. In short, you don’t need to present evidence. You simply connect two (or more) unrelated events and hint at a connection.
Such conspiracy making is almost impossible to refute, as the accuser retreats to the fall back “Yeah, but I’m just saying…”
It’s really quite amazing why anybody would believe anything these two say. It’s also quite frightening that there are a lot of people who do believe what these two have to say. Just goes to show that some people will believe anything no matter how irrational or incredible the source.
From Recovering Fundamentalists:
Misconception #2: Theories Require “Faith” to Believe.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that scientists have just as much faith in their theories as religious people do in their dogma. It frustrates me every time. Anyone who says this is defining theory, faith, or both, incorrectly.
Faith has multiple definitions.
1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. Belief that is not based on proof
When Christians make the statement that science requires faith, it seemingly defines “faith” under definition #1, but the implication bleeds into definition #2. The statement implies that just as Christian principals [sic] haven’t been proven, scientific theories haven’t been proven either. One implication, for example, that the Theory of Evolution is “just a theory” and therefore should not be believed.
The word “Theory” also has multiple definitions. Here are two:
1. A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Christians often think the scientific use of the word “theory” falls under definition #2. That is incorrect. Science uses the word as defined in definition #1. Evolution is a theory that explains the developing complexity of life. Gravity is a theory that explains physics. If a person doesn’t believe in either theory, then they are faced with the daunting task of refuting the mountains of data that support them. Simply saying, “well, gravity is just a theory” is a very weak argument against gravity, and reveals an incorrect usage of the word “theory.”
So if someone says it requires faith to believe a theory, they are being slippery with definitions and implying something absolutely wrong.
Evolution and Global Warming are frequently referred to as religions by fundamentalists. Its misleading and dishonest and nothing more than a desperate attempt to undermine science that threatens their preconceived notion of how the world should work. Read the rest of the article here.
From her blog, Wissup:
Today’s West Bend News:
A number of our animal species are becoming increasingly endangered.
Among them are the gentle, noble and intelligent mountain gorillas. Internet sources say only about 600 to 700 of these majestic creatures are alive today and that number dwindles as their homeland is destroyed.
The West Bend Library is partnering with S.e.e.d, the environmental club at West Bend High School, to show people that what we do locally can affect things globally.
I have no problem with those who want to spend their time trying to save gorillas, whales, pandas, ants, et. al, from extinction, but I am wondering….
Would the library consider partnering with pro-life WBHS students by placing a box for maternity clothing and baby items for collection at the library to encourage women not to kill their babies?
Do public libraries generally advocate for anything not related to library issues?
Since the last library board meeting minutes posted are from February 2nd, one can hardly know if the library board approved this advocacy or not, but one can certainly learn a lot about the crappy, leaky roof.
Now she is seeing phantoms of liberal conspiracy behind the library’s effort to educate children about endangered species. In the mind of the religious right, environmentalism of almost any kind is viewed with suspicion because they believe it can lead to worshiping the creation and not the creator. Environmentalism is also viewed as a conspiratorial attempt for liberal socialists to control our behavior and usher in a global Marxian utopia. Again, they dismiss the science behind it all. They could care less if there is actual science behind the decimation of gorilla populations or any other impact humans have on the environment. They simply dismiss it all as fraud perpetrated by the liberal elitists and march forward with their religious crusade against humanity. How anyone can take this woman seriously is beyond my intellectual prowess.