21 thoughts on “Grammar, please!

    1. Ooh, going beyond religion and rejecting it is “immature”. Tell that to the Enlightenment originators.

      1. I’m well aware that not all Alabamians are creationists. We also don’t all speak with such “Southern lingo”. (Though, now that I’m way out here across the country, I do find myself missing the drawl every now and then…)

        Groups like Interfaith Environmental–while certainly commendable–are the exception in that region, not the rule. And there’s no guarantee that members of such environmental groups are rational when it comes to evolution. Case-in-point: when I was a grad student at UA last year, I did an amphibians outreach program at a Baptist environmental meeting at a campground in AL. The meeting was based around EO Wilson’s call for Christians to be more conscientious in caring for God’s creation….but the main attractions at the meeting were the kids’ activities: Creation Stations! (Day 1, Day 2, etc.) All the many, many kids got to learn about what happened each day of creation in Genesis!

      2. Of course! The ‘I don’t know if you accept evolution or not but you’re religious so I’ll ignore all your other outstanding attributes and assume the negative’ approach to judging faith-based groups! Superficiality: I love it.

        The innocent facade of just wanting to advance science melts away quickly with you guys in lieu of hasty assumptions. You could just as easily say “I hate religion with a bitter passion”, you know?

      3. Did you not read my post, or did you just choose to ignore all it said?

        1- We were there. They invited us, and we participated and helped them teach about biodiversity. How is that “ignor[ing] all your other outstanding attributes”??

        2- We didn’t assume anything. It was pretty obvious–given the abundant evidence, which we scientists are all about, you know–that this organization (as a whole) did not accept evolution. They were teaching literal 6-day creation.

        3- To my knowledge anyway, no one here has ever said we shouldn’t work with faith-based organizations in science outreach simply *because* they are religious.

      4. Was there a website for this meeting of yours, Newman? I’ll pull the same thing on you as people have been doing over on The Intersection about a similar recent anecdotal post.

        Show me the website, if one exists. Something tells me there was a lot more to this event of yours than talking about creationism if they willingly invited scientists and if it was based around Wilson’s book. I get the distinct feeling you’re hinging on the shocking parts of it and ignoring the many other positives…

      5. “3- To my knowledge anyway, no one here has ever said we shouldn’t work with faith-based organizations in science outreach simply *because* they are religious.”

        You should try reading this blog sometime – or at least read it with an objective pair of eyes.

      6. OK, I’m confused. I didn’t intend to incite an argument that has little to nothing to do with the original blog post. I am not the one making assumptions here; you are. Where in my original comment did I even hint at anything regarding the whole accommodationism issue? The point of my “anecdotal post”–as I thought was obvious–was to illustrate the fact that people can be environmentally-conscious and still believe in literal creation. And that’s true, clearly. So “hinging on the shocking parts” was completely appropriate in that case. And yet still, I said nothing regarding accommodationism. Our role in that meeting was not to educate about evolution, but (as I already said) to show and talk about amphibian & reptile biodiversity in the South. Where in ANY of that did you draw the conclusion/make the assumption that I was bashing this group because they’re religious?

        You demanded a website:

        And in response to your insistence that this blog (and, if I may assume, those like-minded elsewhere) says we should not acknowledge the positives of groups with any sort of religious attachment and work with them to fight the misconceptions about evolution…well, that argument has been rehashed so many times already that it would be silly for me to try to top what’s already been said.

    1. It’s not you, Newman, It’s Bilbo. He has these issues with others here and on other blogs. I’ve seen some on Pharyngula refer to him has “dildo”. (Perhaps this exacerbates his general ire and tendency to take offense.)

  1. I just moved out to western Virginia from Cape Cod. I was driving around the beautiful countryside here observing church signs. Most had the standard admonitions and holier-than-thou didactic obviousness that one would expect. However, one church–Methodists, if I recall correctly–had a sign that said, “God prefers spiritual fruits not religious nuts.” I know this slogan is almost trite in some circles, but it’s nice to see on a church signboard every so often.

  2. “Doctrinal Statement #4:
    “We believe in the Genesis account of Creation (Gen. 1; 2)”

    who wants to tell them the orders of creation are different and conflict from chapter 1 to chapter 2?

Leave a Reply