Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bush Remarks Roil Debate Over Teaching Evolution
Topic Started: Aug 3 2005, 08:23 AM (969 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
Aug 3 2005, 02:21 PM
Religion is based on ancient writings from people who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

Um, so was science. Read up on the geocentric models of the solar system, retrograde motion, epicycles, and deferents. Science devoloped out of such things, and out of such things as alchemy.

By the way, this anti-Judeo-Christian bigotry really must stop.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
Aug 3 2005, 03:02 PM
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sciencewars/

The New Science Wars

Is George W. Bush's the most anti-science administration in modern times?

Do you have something aside from your usual opinion blogs? This one is actually from "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal." :rotfl: Sorry, I should have specified sooner to save you the trouble.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Key word: was.

And please stop personally attacking me. I have no prejudice toward Judeo-Christianity. I am really growing weary of this. If you can't discuss the issue without resorting to personal attacks, I really wish you'd stop responding.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003...kerry-1210.html

Stanford Report, Dec. 10, 2003

Kerry raps Bush’s ‘anti-science’ bias

BY BARBARA PALMER

In a campus appearance billed as his launch of a comprehensive plan to boost the creation of high-technology jobs in the United States, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Monday delivered a blistering critique of the Bush administration's record on everything from national security and the new Medicare bill to what he called Bush's "anti-science" bias.

Kerry, one of nine candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, also outlined a broad plan to stanch the flow of high-technology jobs from the United States and to create new jobs. His proposal includes tax cuts for investment in technology; tax credits for research and development and for companies that deploy broadband access in rural and inner-city areas; and increased commitment to education.

Kerry, whose lunch-hour remarks drew applause and a standing ovation from a packed crowd in the Oak Lounge at Tresidder Union, criticized the Bush administration's foreign policy as "profoundly threatening" to Americans.

By rushing to war without international sanction and without a plan for peace, the Bush administration has pursued the most "arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy" in modern history, Kerry charged. Its strategy of unilateral, preemptive war has set the global war on terrorism back and left U.S. international relations "in tatters across the planet."

Bush's foreign policy also has diminished Islamic moderates and fueled radicalism, he said. "Unless we as a nation change course and indicate some other option to the world, we could incite and invite a clash of civilizations with catastrophic consequences for the future."

Kerry was introduced by William J. Perry, former secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Michael and Barbara Berberian Professor with a joint appointment in the Management Science and Engineering Department and the Stanford Institute for International Studies. Kerry's visit was sponsored by groups including the Stanford Democrats, the Associated Students, Stanford in Government and the World Affairs Council of Northern California, which taped Kerry's remarks for future broadcast.

Supporting a candidate was an unusual role for him and represented the first time he's been involved in a presidential primary campaign, Perry said. But increasing concern over the direction of the country and its leadership over the last two-and-a-half years had led him to conclude that it is important to defeat Bush's bid for reelection, he said.

The Bush administration's partisan approach to economic issues is bankrupting America's future, its ideological approach to social issues is deeply dividing American society and its arrogant approach to foreign policy is driving away long-time allies, Perry said. "And I believe its priority on preventive war is endangering the security of all Americans."

If elected president, Kerry said, he would restore diplomacy as the preferred tool of the strong and elevate nonproliferation of nuclear weapons to the top of the national security agenda. He drew applause when he pledged to lead the United States in "rejoining the community of nations."

Addressing the loss of high-technology jobs to other countries, Kerry said that jump-starting job creation in the United States is the best response to outsourcing.

Kerry said he would support making permanent the research and development tax credit and eliminating capital gains taxes for new investments in small companies that are held for at least four years.

He also proposed that a federal incentive program be created to establish broadband access in rural and other underserved areas to bring new opportunities for telecommuting, distance learning and telemedicine.

The Bush administration is the most anti-science administration in modern history, Kerry said, citing the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to 64 existing stem cell lines. In making that decision, Bush appeased the Republican Party's right wing and ignored scientists, he said.

The United States needs to produce more scientists and engineers, whose innovations can fuel the economic future, he said. To help create a better-educated work force, Kerry proposed a plan to pay college tuition for students who would pledge service to their communities in exchange.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
Aug 3 2005, 03:11 PM
Key word: was.

And please stop personally attacking me.  I have no prejudice toward Judeo-Christianity.  I am really growing weary of this.  If you can't discuss the issue without resorting to personal attacks, I really wish you'd stop responding.

I'm not attacking you, I am calling you out. You have made several snide anti-Christian remarks here on numerous occasions, and I am calling on you to stop them. Do so, or I shall report them.

By the way, you said "Religion IS."

I can discuss the issue. It seems that you are incapable of discussing the issue without tossing out the "oh so superior because I'm not a Christian" comment. Just cut it out.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I have made no anti-Christian comment in this thread. Lets discuss the current issue shall we?

BTW: YOU said religion WAS. ;)

I have apologized to those I have offended. A measure you have never done.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
Aug 3 2005, 03:12 PM
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003...kerry-1210.html

Stanford Report, Dec. 10, 2003

Kerry raps Bush’s ‘anti-science’ bias

BY BARBARA PALMER

In a campus appearance billed as his launch of a comprehensive plan to boost the creation of high-technology jobs in the United States, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Monday delivered a blistering critique of the Bush administration's record on everything from national security and the new Medicare bill to what he called Bush's "anti-science" bias.

Kerry, one of nine candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, also outlined a broad plan to stanch the flow of high-technology jobs from the United States and to create new jobs. His proposal includes tax cuts for investment in technology; tax credits for research and development and for companies that deploy broadband access in rural and inner-city areas; and increased commitment to education.

Kerry, whose lunch-hour remarks drew applause and a standing ovation from a packed crowd in the Oak Lounge at Tresidder Union, criticized the Bush administration's foreign policy as "profoundly threatening" to Americans.

By rushing to war without international sanction and without a plan for peace, the Bush administration has pursued the most "arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy" in modern history, Kerry charged. Its strategy of unilateral, preemptive war has set the global war on terrorism back and left U.S. international relations "in tatters across the planet."

Bush's foreign policy also has diminished Islamic moderates and fueled radicalism, he said. "Unless we as a nation change course and indicate some other option to the world, we could incite and invite a clash of civilizations with catastrophic consequences for the future."

Kerry was introduced by William J. Perry, former secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Michael and Barbara Berberian Professor with a joint appointment in the Management Science and Engineering Department and the Stanford Institute for International Studies. Kerry's visit was sponsored by groups including the Stanford Democrats, the Associated Students, Stanford in Government and the World Affairs Council of Northern California, which taped Kerry's remarks for future broadcast.

Supporting a candidate was an unusual role for him and represented the first time he's been involved in a presidential primary campaign, Perry said. But increasing concern over the direction of the country and its leadership over the last two-and-a-half years had led him to conclude that it is important to defeat Bush's bid for reelection, he said.

The Bush administration's partisan approach to economic issues is bankrupting America's future, its ideological approach to social issues is deeply dividing American society and its arrogant approach to foreign policy is driving away long-time allies, Perry said. "And I believe its priority on preventive war is endangering the security of all Americans."

If elected president, Kerry said, he would restore diplomacy as the preferred tool of the strong and elevate nonproliferation of nuclear weapons to the top of the national security agenda. He drew applause when he pledged to lead the United States in "rejoining the community of nations."

Addressing the loss of high-technology jobs to other countries, Kerry said that jump-starting job creation in the United States is the best response to outsourcing.

Kerry said he would support making permanent the research and development tax credit and eliminating capital gains taxes for new investments in small companies that are held for at least four years.

He also proposed that a federal incentive program be created to establish broadband access in rural and other underserved areas to bring new opportunities for telecommuting, distance learning and telemedicine.

The Bush administration is the most anti-science administration in modern history, Kerry said, citing the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to 64 existing stem cell lines. In making that decision, Bush appeased the Republican Party's right wing and ignored scientists, he said.

The United States needs to produce more scientists and engineers, whose innovations can fuel the economic future, he said. To help create a better-educated work force, Kerry proposed a plan to pay college tuition for students who would pledge service to their communities in exchange.

You can do better than that.

You went to all the trouble to print a Kerry article, when the crux of it was,

Quote:
 
The Bush administration is the most anti-science administration in modern history, Kerry said, citing the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to 64 existing stem cell lines. In making that decision, Bush appeased the Republican Party's right wing and ignored scientists, he said.



Wow, one thing, limiting FEDERAL FUNDING to stem cell research. Yeah, we're in the dark ages now.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
Aug 3 2005, 03:15 PM
I have made no anti-Christian comment in this thread. Lets discuss the current issue shall we?

Quote:
 
Religion is based on ancient writings from people who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.


This is an anti-Christian comment.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=121


George Bush: The Anti-Science President

George W. Bush has shown contempt for science. He ignores it, manipulates it and overrules it. This is not just the view of the Nader-Camejo campaign, it is the view of leading scientists. As the Union of Concerned Scientists reports:

On February 18, 2004, 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers released a statement titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making. In this statement, the scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread and unprecedented “manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions.” The scientists’ statement made brief reference to specific cases that illustrate this pattern of behavior. In conjunction with the statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released detailed documentation backing up the scientists’ charges in its report, Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.

Since this report came out more evidence of President Bush as the anti-science president has emerged. Indeed, even within his own administration scientists are beginning to speak out. Michael Kelly, a biologist who had served at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service for nine years, recently resigned his position and issued an indictment of Bush administration practices. As Kelly wrote, “I speak for many of my fellow biologists who are embarrassed and disgusted by the agency’s apparent misuse of science.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that concern in the scientific community has continued to grow. Since their original report, more than 5,000 scientists have signed onto the scientists’ statement complaining about the anti-scientific nature of the Bush Regime. Signers include 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences. Many of these scientists have served in multiple administrations, both Democratic and Republican. This highlights the unprecedented nature of the Bush administration’s practices. It also demonstrates that the issues of scientific integrity transcend partisan politics.

The statement of these leading scientists is devastating. They describe the method of anti-science by the Bush Regime:

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice.

In what areas has the Bush administration been anti-scientific? It cuts across many issues that are critical to the future of our society and the world. Some examples:

* Climate Change: The administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. In June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency in order to justify its failure to address the issue of global climate change. Bush administration spokespersons continue to contend that the uncertainties in climate projections and fossil fuel emissions are too great to warrant mandatory action to slow emissions. The failure to face-up to this critical environmental issue puts the earth at risk, but protects the oil and gas interests the administration represents.
* Clean Air: The administration suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act. “Clear Skies” would be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act. Once again, protecting the corporate polluters was more important than the health of Americans.
* Endangered Species: Six leading ecologists who were appointed to a scientific advisory panel by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) claim that they were asked to remove science-based recommendations from an official report concerning endangered coastal Coho salmon. The members of the panel were told to either strip out their recommendations or see their report end up in a drawer.
* More Endangered Species: In several recent cases at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a branch of the Department of the Interior, Bush administration officials have demonstrated a serious disregard for scientific integrity by suppressing or distorting research by government scientists or contractors. The cases involved: distorting scientific knowledge on Florida panthers, suppressing analyses on Bull Trout habitat and misrepresenting scientific knowledge on rare swans.
* Mountaintop Removal for Strip Mining: According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, internal government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that senior Bush administration officials at the U.S. Department of the Interior intentionally disregarded extensive scientific studies conducted by five separate federal and state agencies over four years in preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) on mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. J. Stephen Griles, deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior and a former lobbyist for the National Mining Association, instructed agency scientists and staff to change the focus of the EIS to "focus on centralizing and streamlining coal-mining permitting.”

The list goes on and on. Among other examples are: mercury emissions, air pollutants, forest management, emergency contraception, abstinence-only education, HIV/AIDS prevention, airborne bacteria and breast cancer.

President Bush would be wise to listen to the advice of his father, who said, on April 23, 1990:

Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.

Science and technology have been important to making the United States safer, healthier, wealthier and more prosperous. Ignoring science, as this administration has done, will result in more deaths and disease, more environmental damage, and faulty health, safety and other policies. The failure to accept science and research is one reason why this country has far more problems than it deserves and far more solutions than it applies.

For more information:

* Union of Concerned Scientists
* Federation of American Scientists
* Center for Science in the Public Interest

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Geez, do you have ANY news sources, or just your usual fellow traveler sites?

I'm not asking for the moon here... :no:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dr. Noah
Aug 3 2005, 03:21 PM
I disagree. There are certain areas of science that rely on abstract theorizing based on particle collisions, but most areas of science rely on hard data. Religion is based on ancient writings from people who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

This view of religion is very limited. There are many that have religious or spiritual experiences. Their beliefs come from both what is written as well as their experiences.

Thinking is not included or explained in science except as electro-chemical reactions in the brain.

With science humans are simply one form of animal organism. The prime directive of organisms is to pass on their genetic material. Those that do the best job of doing this will determine the future of the species. At death the organism stops functioning and that is that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 3 2005, 04:17 PM
Dr. Noah
Aug 3 2005, 03:15 PM
I have made no anti-Christian comment in this thread.  Lets discuss the current issue shall we?

Quote:
 
Religion is based on ancient writings from people who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.


This is an anti-Christian comment.

I agree.

When discussing evolution and intelligent design one IS discussing science and religion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 3 2005, 04:08 PM
Dr. Noah
Aug 3 2005, 02:21 PM
Religion is based on ancient writings from people who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.


I am still amazed by this statement. Actually it was early science that believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

I think both science and religion are searches for meaning and truth. They are searches for what we are.

In my world, what seems closest to me, what has not changed since I was a small child is this sense of awareness. Things such as my perceptions, thoughts, and emotions change in this awareness but the awareness is always unchanged. From a scientific standpoint I am defined as a body. About the only thing that has not changed over time are certain genetic markers.

I have explored science. I find it useful at times but it has given no meaning to my life. In science's self-limited field of scope I will cease to exist in less than a wink of an eye in the timeframe of the universe. My world is that of awareness with changing thoughts and perceptions. Science is part of that. I prefer to explore the world within which holds the promise of life rather than the world of science which leads to death. Perhaps the greatest question that can be asked is, Who are you?

In this sense both evolution and intelligent design are part of that same search for meaning and truth.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Well I read through this thread twice and I still can't get over the comment that religion is based on ancient writings from people who thought the Earth was the center of the universe. I always thought that religion was based on interactions various people had with God and things spiritual about which they wrote. Just as science reaches out into the external and reveals to us the mechanisms and processes of the world about us, so does religion reach into our innermost soul and spirit and reveal to us Who and What resides within.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Actually, that is not an anti-Christian comment. I said religion. So it must be an anti-religious comment. It applies to all religions. You can interpret it that way if you like. Realize though, I am a spiritual person. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus