Jump to content

OT: KU Creationism professor beaten on roadside


sonaboy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Originally posted by shepherdspy

I wouldn't call him a "Creationism" professor.

 

 

he's the guy that was slated to teach KU's only class on Creationism.

 

why is that considered backhanded?

 

i call professors that teach English "English Professors."

 

i call professors that teach biology, "Biology Professors."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by ColorsoundKid

It's obvious you are a vagina, sonaboy. Calling him a "creationism" professor is nothing more than a call to a pissing match with people who hold the exact opposite view of you.


 

 

That's the class that he teaches (or was going to teach) - but thanks for starting off with a personal insult.

 

if you want to get technical - fine - i'm wary of fundamentalism, and shun it at almost every opportunity.

fundamentalism does not progress our society, nor does it progress spirituality.

 

it is a plague propogated and enforced by scared, many times violent people.

 

but if sounding off with my displeasure at a mob mentality based on things a professor SAID which got him beaten, is what you call a pissing match - so be it.

 

if it comes down to a choice of a pissing match, or being quiet about violent actions from a grassroots scourge near my hometown, i'll take the pissing match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by sonaboy



he's the guy that was slated to teach KU's only class on Creationism.


why is that considered backhanded?


i call professors that teach English "English Professors."


i call professors that teach biology, "Biology Professors."

It makes it seem like he takes the affirmative position on creationism, which he certainly doesn't. I think the guy may take exception with the term.

 

When I hear teaching Creationism, I think fundie.

 

This professor obviously believes in evolution like most reasonable people. he was teaching against creationism and not only that - that is allegedly the reason he was beat up.

 

So, i just think the title of your thread is wrong.

 

If your point is, it is horrible he got beat up for teaching that class, then I agree completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by shepherdspy

It makes it seem like he takes the affirmative position on creationism, which he certainly doesn't. I think the guy may take exception with the term.


When I hear teaching Creationism, I think fundie.


This professor obviously believes in evolution like most reasonable people. he was teaching against creationism and not only that - that is allegedly the reason he was beat up.


So, i just think the title of your thread is wrong.


If your point is, it is horrible he got beat up for teaching that class, then I agree completely.

 

 

I take exception to the statement "believes in evolution like most reasonable people."

 

Is that to say that believing in something that is untestable, like love or truth or even our concepts of ourselves then, are not beliefs that "reasonable" people have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by shepherdspy

Evolution is able to be tested. I read your post several times and I don't see what your getting at.


This link may be of interest to you:

 

 

My point is that "reasonable" people can believe in creationism- as much as people that believe in evolution can believe in love or truth or other things that are not able to be "known".

 

Your statement implies that belief in creationism is an "unreasonable" position. My point is that belief in love or truth or a concept of yourself is also just as "unreasonable" yet these things are embraced by people that also believe in evolution (in your words- "reasonable" people)

 

I am not debating whether or not creationism is "true" only that people can arrive at that belief in a manner that is "reasonable"

 

It is impossible for human beings to be truly rational actors in any part of their existence because they cannot know all that there is to know, so mostly they act "rationally" (or reasonably) within the confines of certain limitations. They do not keep searching the haystack for the absolute sharpest needle that exists, they only search until they find one sharp enough to sew with...

You dig?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by BryanMichael


Is that to say that believing in something that is untestable, like love or truth or even our concepts of ourselves then, are not beliefs that "reasonable" people have?



Love, truth and self-concepts are actually measurable and testable. Perhaps at varying degrees, but certainly measurable. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by BryanMichael



My point is that "reasonable" people can believe in creationism- as much as people that believe in evolution can believe in love or truth or other things that are not able to be "known".


Your statement implies that belief in creationism is an "unreasonable" position. My point is that belief in love or truth or a concept of yourself is also just as "unreasonable" yet these things are embraced by people that also believe in evolution (in your words- "reasonable" people)


I am not debating whether or not creationism is "true" only that people can arrive at that belief in a manner that is "reasonable"


It is impossible for human beings to be truly rational actors in any part of their existence because they cannot know all that there is to know, so mostly they act "rationally" (or reasonably) within the confines of certain limitations. They do not keep searching the haystack for the absolute sharpest needle that exists, they only search until they find one sharp enough to sew with...

You dig?



I've made the exact point you are making now and it always turns into a pissing match. Like Eddie saying that love can be measured. :rolleyes: The EFFECTS of love can be measured, but not love itself.

And the very way in which you responded to the poster shows me that you are in fact reasonable Bryan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by BryanMichael



My point is that "reasonable" people can believe in creationism- as much as people that believe in evolution can believe in love or truth or other things that are not able to be "known".


Your statement implies that belief in creationism is an "unreasonable" position. My point is that belief in love or truth or a concept of yourself is also just as "unreasonable" yet these things are embraced by people that also believe in evolution (in your words- "reasonable" people)


I am not debating whether or not creationism is "true" only that people can arrive at that belief in a manner that is "reasonable"


It is impossible for human beings to be truly rational actors in any part of their existence because they cannot know all that there is to know, so mostly they act "rationally" (or reasonably) within the confines of certain limitations. They do not keep searching the haystack for the absolute sharpest needle that exists, they only search until they find one sharp enough to sew with...

You dig?

Yes, now I understand your point.

 

First let me say, what I find reasonable is just my opinion and therefore not worth much. People can believe whatever they want, with or without evidence. But from my perspective some arguments seem more rational, more reasonable. For instance, religious persons who believe in evolution but say it is just a mechanism created and controlled by God - I find these people quite reasonable. i don't agree with them, but I can't prove them wrong.

 

If it is your belief that because we don't know everything, that we cannot know anything - then I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by shepherdspy

Yes, now I understand your point.


First let me say, what I find reasonable is just my opinion and therefore not worth much. People can believe whatever they want, with or without evidence. But from my perspective some arguments seem more rational, more reasonable. For instance, religious persons who believe in evolution but say it is just a mechanism created and controlled by God - I find these people quite reasonable. i don't agree with them, but I can't prove them wrong.


If it is your belief that because we don't know everything, that we cannot know anything - then I disagree.




No, I think you got it- it wasn't to say that we cannot know anything (although a real philospoher might disagree- I understand what you mean :) )

Only what yaz was saying, that the "effects of love" are measurable etc.... "love" is not really measurable- of course someone could devise some scale and say "this measures love" but then it would be how much you believe in the scale! ANother act of "faith" as it were to believe in the validity of the instrument being used to measure the phenomenon ;)

But I am not a philosopher really.

Although research shows that we always tend to believe that arguments that support our own position are "rational and reasonable" and arguements that don't are "based on emotion and reactionary."

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by yaz75


I've made the exact point you are making now and it always turns into a pissing match. Like Eddie saying that love can be measured.
:rolleyes:
The EFFECTS of love can be measured, but not love itself.



Well, instead of posting a :rolleyes: why don't you read some of the research on the topic.

If by "EFFECTS of love" you mean physiological reactions, I'm not even referring to that. Although is certainly also an area that has shown specific reactions to love (e.g., heart rate, dilated pupils, breathing, etc.)

From what I remember, and this is from 6 years ago, there was some research related to activities people engage in for their loved ones, and looking to correlate strength of love with diverse activities. I never read the original research, so I can't elaborate further. The topic just came up when a professor mentioned it, probably in psychological measurements or advanced statistics, but I don't remember.

The bottom line is that even though I found the notion of measuring love strange then, now I can see that it can indeed be measured or at least an approximation of it can be inferred from diverse activities.

Regarding a love scale, it is not a matter of someone believing in the scale or not. That would be faith, and not science. A scale needs to fill certain requirements, including reliability and validity. It's not a matter of belief of faith. It may be more of a matter of math :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by shepherdspy

It makes it seem like he takes the affirmative position on creationism, which he certainly doesn't. I think the guy may take exception with the term.


When I hear teaching Creationism, I think fundie.


This professor obviously believes in evolution like most reasonable people. he was teaching against creationism and not only that - that is allegedly the reason he was beat up.


So, i just think the title of your thread is wrong.


If your point is, it is horrible he got beat up for teaching that class, then I agree completely.

 

 

well, he's a RELIGIOUS STUDIES professor that was teaching creationism in it's proper context - as a religious belief system, not as science.

 

he doesn't believe in the actual system of creationism, no.

but, being a religious studies teacher, i'm also sure he teaches classes on other belief systems that he himself is not a follower of - Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

Believing in, and following the dogma of every religion is not a requirement to become a religious studies scholar. Most professors basically pick one like everyone else and stick with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Eddie



Well, instead of posting a
:rolleyes:
why don't you read some of the research on the topic.


If by "EFFECTS of love" you mean physiological reactions, I'm not even referring to that. Although is certainly also an area that has shown specific reactions to love (e.g., heart rate, dilated pupils, breathing, etc.)


From what I remember, and this is from 6 years ago, there was some research related to activities people engage in for their loved ones, and looking to correlate strength of love with diverse activities. I never read the original research, so I can't elaborate further. The topic just came up when a professor mentioned it, probably in psychological measurements or advanced statistics, but I don't remember.


The bottom line is that even though I found the notion of measuring love strange then, now I can see that it can indeed be measured or at least an approximation of it can be inferred from diverse activities.


Regarding a love scale, it is not a matter of someone believing in the scale or not. That would be faith, and not science. A scale needs to fill certain requirements, including reliability and validity. It's not a matter of belief of faith. It may be more of a matter of math
:D



Of course a scale would have to fulfill certain requirements, but to take something like "love" and measure it, first you would have to define it- and by defining it, you CONfine it. By CONfining it, you are only working within the limitations of that concept of what "love" is. So your statements about measuring love would only be as valid as the parameters that you set- and those parameters may or may not fit with someone else's parameters as to what love IS. My point was only that "reasonable" people believe in love, a concept that is not measurable in the scientific way- so being "reasonable" or not has nothing to do with believing in creationism or intelligent design as concepts which may not be measurable in a scientific way either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by BryanMichael



I take exception to the statement "believes in evolution like most reasonable people."


Is that to say that believing in something that is untestable, like love or truth or even our concepts of ourselves then, are not beliefs that "reasonable" people have?

 

 

the UNREASONABLE aspect of choosing an untestable version of biology is that, as a science, biology requires testability.

 

if you believe in something that can't be tested as a science, then like Sheperd's pie says, "you are unreasonable.

 

if you believe in something that's untestable as a phenomenon, such as love, then you are human.

 

science can explain to us what happens during the feeling of love, and how we act during it, but it isn't trying to disprove the existence of a human emotion. much like how evolution has no concern about whether there is a god or not- it just wants to explain how things work that we observe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by skr3ddy

Why link to an OT that is already posted in the {censored}ing political forum??? Keep it there where it belongs. This is utter bull{censored}.

 

 

i can post whatever i feel like posting in here. i talk plenty about effects, i can talk plenty about other interests too.

 

there's no rules about posting links to other forums here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by sonaboy

i call professors that teach English "English Professors."


i call professors that teach biology, "Biology Professors."

 

 

So call this professor, who teaches Religious Studies, a "Religious Studies Professor". He's not teaching creationism, is he? I would say that the thread title was chosen specifically for its emotional impact - people in your other thread commented on it too, so you must have known in advance that it was likely to cause a reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by dot-dot-dot



So call this professor, who teaches Religious Studies, a "Religious Studies Professor". He's not teaching creationism, is he? I would say that the thread title was chosen specifically for its emotional impact - people in your other thread commented on it too, so you must have known in advance that it was likely to cause a reaction.



ok - let's just say that i knew more people would look at this thread by using the headline "Creationism professor gets beaten on roadside" rather than "professor gets beaten on roadside."

on the other hand, the fact of the matter is - without the Creationism aspect of it - this professor would NOT HAVE BEEN BEATEN.
If he was a regular anonymous religious studies professor at KU, he would have not been stalked and beaten by two men and sent to the hospital.

headlines are all about generating interest out of an economic use of words.
:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't believe that evolution and creationism are incompatible.

This may sound like fundamentalism, but I assure you, it's not...fundamentalists are the idiots who say that God created earth in seven days - no more, no less - because the Bible must ALWAYS be taken literally. Have you read Revelation, people?? The whole thing is made of metaphors. The same preachers that go on and espouse fundamentalism are the ones that give prophecies at 7 every Sunday night. Furthermore, I'd have to say that almost 3/4 of the Bible is allegory in some way or another, so how can you take it literally?? Jesus even told parables to get his point across...

If a God so wished, evolution could have been used to create man. It's not impossible, nor is it un-rational to believe such a thing.

Evolution does not disprove a higher being. In fact, it does not address the question at all. I am not saying that it was the Christian God or anything . . .

I could get into specifics, but the Big Bang would have been impossible without something acting on it from the outside (singularities, etc). Scientists can only go back - the math/theory/whatnot just cannot explain how a singularity could have exploded ... Anyway, I really don't want to get into specifics. This is just the way I feel...you can blast it or whatever, but I feel that it's a legitimate belief and I really don't understand what all the fuss between the two sides is about...

That's my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by BryanMichael


Of course a scale would have to fulfill certain requirements, but to take something like "love" and measure it, first you would have to define it- and by defining it, you CONfine it. By CONfining it, you are only working within the limitations of that concept of what "love" is. So your statements about measuring love would only be as valid as the parameters that you set- and those parameters may or may not fit with someone else's parameters as to what love IS.



Certainly. You're right. OTOH, if we don't define something we could be talking about different things, hence an operational definition becomes essential. So yes, love would have to be clearly defined for the purpose of research, and perhaps only certain aspects of love are the ones that can and will be measured.

I really appreciate your comments. Quite different from the :rolleyes: posted by yaz75. It's easier to have an intelligent conversation this way. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by baron85


If a God so wished, evolution could have been used to create man. It's not impossible, nor is it un-rational to believe such a thing.


Evolution does not disprove a higher being. In fact, it does not address the question at all. I am not saying that it was the Christian God or anything . . .

 

 

This is a couple of things that NO ONE on the fundamentalist side of the issue EVER talks about - the fact that NO ONE in the scientific community who works in evolutionary biology has ANY INTEREST WHATSOEVER in trying to disprove the existence of god.

 

It's simply ridiculous to even try.

 

But since fundamentalism survives and propagates on fear and concealement, the leaders in the movement against science demonize the opposition as godless conspirators who will stop at nothing to bury the church in a sea of lies.

 

it's sickening, and it's also recognized as a transparent attempt by any rational adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...