DNA pioneers lash out at religion -- The Washington Times
I am appalled to see such faulty logic applied to this issue by respected scientists.Speaking recently, Mr. Crick, 86, said: "The god hypothesis is rather discredited." His distaste for religion, he said, was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the 1953 discovery.
- There is no "God Hypothesis", because there is no way to test it
- There is no "No God Hypothesis", because there is no way to test it.
Mr. Crick, a Briton, says that because many of the claims made by religions over thousands of years have proved false, the burden should be on them to prove the claims they make today, rather than putting the burden on atheists to disprove the existence of God.This, again, is a mockery of the scientific method. In fact, the cardinal difference between religeon and science is that science accepts that it is wrong. Often and gladly. The entire purpose of science is to determine what we are wrong about. Making a blanket claim -- there is no God -- based on zero falsifiable experiments is frankly, a religious statement.
"Archbishop Ussher claimed the world was created in 4004 B.C. Now we know it is 4.5 billion years old. It's astonishing to me that people continue to accept religious claims," said Mr. Crick. "People like myself get along perfectly well with no religious views."Earth older than thought
Earth Deemed Older, Calling Moon Formation Theory into Question
Universe older and bigger than previously thought
Galaxies older than previously thought
If you accept the logic of this pair of old deluded frauds, then science is -- by their logic -- a sham.
WorldNetDaily: Journalistic courage at University of Maryland
More of the story on Bulldozer Bettie.The 60 protesters who invaded the Diamondback offices demanded a formal apology for the cartoon to be printed, along with an article honoring Rachel Corrie.But editor Parsons, flanked by two University of Maryland police officers said he would do no such things, because, "As a newspaper, we are the beneficiaries and the guardians of the First Amendment -- the very same First Amendment that guarantees all of you the right to stand here today ... This cartoon met the editorial staff's criteria: It did not incite violence and was not considered libelous. Cartoonist Friedman will remain on the Diamondback staff and no infractions will be issued against him."
Of might and 'smart' men
I've been given the backhanded comment that I seem to be able to "argue for the war using reason" as if it is some kind of exception, so it doesn't surprise me to see this observation.It's a popular conceit among the antiwar crowd that diplomacy is the realm of the intelligent, while war is for dummies who can't talk their way out of a crisis.Thus, the antiwar group Not in Our Name dismissed the war on terrorism as "simplistic" and boasted that its membership included "intellectuals."
Likewise, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's lamented that President Bush "failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war." In this fantasy world, Bush is waging war because it's the easy way to go. Nonsense.
Time to Renounce the United Nations?
Everyone's Favorite Libertarian posing as a Republican, Ron Paul:Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus. We don’t need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. It’s bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don’t care about America.Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.
The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.
