Re: [asa] 7 Words You Can't Say in Church WAS ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

At 06:10 AM 11/4/2007, John Walley wrote:

>As a more humorous aside to this very serious issue of the truth not
>being allowed in most of the evangelical church, a friend of mine
>who is also a recent TE convert and I came up with this to hopefully
>help break the ice and get people to start thinking about this.
>
>NASA scientist and former RTB Apologist Dr. Mark Whorton, author of
>"Peril in Paradise" will be presenting to the RTB Atlanta Chapter
>Christmas Party later this month on "Peril in the Pew: The Evolution
>of an Evolving Creationist" and this came out of our preparation for
>that. Please let me know what you think. J
>
>7 Words you can't say in Church:
>
>1. Big Bang
>2. Old Earth
>3. Death before the Fall
>4. Allegorical Genesis
>5. Common Descent
>6. Darwin
>
>annnnd
>
>7. S ex ~ John

@ What I think is humorous is the fact that there are 14 words, not 7. :)

Nevertheless, I take it that you two are suggesting that the people
you are talking about are in denial but that it's getting closer and
closer to the point where "they can no longer avoid looking in the
mirror to see what their delusions have wrought. And based on their
behavior, they apparently know that "the only way to avoid being
submerged by all this reality is to embrace the denial ever more
tightly and descend deeper into delusion and paranoia. It is either
that, or courageously face the truth; re-evaluate their premises and
come to grips with the unpleasant reality they have been desperately
trying to avoid. They have been willing to compromise the values they
give lip service to in order to keep their precious religion intact."
  ~ Pat Santy http://tinyurl.com/8q2wh

Is that about right?

I'll bet you two even think that if it wasn't so sad, you'd have to
laugh at how easily people can "suffer from the kind of group-think
that develops in cloistered cultures".

QUOTE: "The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic
climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the
pitfalls of partisanship.".. Scientists ... reputation for
impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of p
olitical diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind
of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this
profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes
, scientists will be suspected of constituting a
leftistthink-tank." "On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow
scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings so as to
galvanize an apathetic public..." ~ K. Emmanuel - MIT

An ASAer writes this a number of years ago:

QUOTE: ..there are "scientists" in abundance who ...are not shy
about arguing "junkscience," citing only favorable evidence while
ignoring the contrary, thereby risking not only their own
reputations, but also that of the profession we all love. The authors
cite an abundance of instances, some involving scientists of
nationwide stature. Frankly, I felt sick as I read this book. .. The
authors show how easy it is to buffalo the media, and by extension,
the public, by pseudoscientific claims made by "real" scientists
whose intellectual heritage is that of nineteenth- century snake oil
salesmen. To conclude this review, I will illustrate its disturbing
message by telling an old, stale joke. Why do they bury scientists
twelve feet down? Because, deep down, they are really good people.
Oops! Not funny! That should be some other profession, not
"scientists!" .... Other professions have their share of shysters.
So does the scientific profession. The public just has not picked up
on us yet. It is clear that far too many in our profession have lost
their way. Are they a small minority? I would like to think so. Do
they have a bad influence in our society? Yes. Is this a good thing?
Clearly, no. .." ~ J. Bu rgeson reviewing TRUST US, WE'RE
EXPERTS... http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200709/0311.html

So in light of the foregoing, we may see that because people are in
denial, there is a very serious issue of the truth not being allowed
in Academia, and I came up with this to hopefully help break the ice
and get intellectually honest people to start thinking about this.

I have a talk I'll be presenting soon entitled, "Peril in the
Academies": The Evolution of an Evolving Academic" and as a humorous
aside, this came out of my preparation for that talk.

8 things you can't say in Academia:

1. A man does not behave like an hysterical woman.
http://tinyurl.com/2wfafk

2. An easily offended person is also a passive-aggressive controlling
person--hardly a victim, but an aggressor.
http://tinyurl.com/2wfafk

3. Many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring
urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science.
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200709/0289.html

4. Consensus is largely a propaganda claim designed to relieve
ordinary people of the need to understand the issue.
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200709/0289.html

5. In the film, "AIT", science is used in the hands of a talented p
olitician and communicator, to make a p olitical statement and to
support a p olitical programme. There is no [valid reason] ... to
support the more extreme views of
AG. http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200710/0156.html

6. The C onst*tution was written to be "the supreme Law of the Land."
a constant, unchanging document written for the ages.
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200708/0392.html

7. Academics read M arx. C ons*rvatives understand him.
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200708/0422.html

annnnd

8. Since p olitics is their religion, l*ftists p oliticize
everything, including se x.
http://tinyurl.com/2wfafk

~ Janice [insert smiley face]

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 4 14:21:04 2007