The goal of this group is to meet regularly (~biweekly) to discuss/debate the hot topics in scientific controversy and their implications in the sociopolitical world. My personal aim in founding this group is to refine the art of delivering articulate and diplomatic scientific explanations to those who don't "believe" in science. In addition, I would like to expand our efforts to somehow elucidating to the general public/non-science students the importance of science in the progress of society.I'm in.
The first meeting will be Wednesday, January
Anyone else want to join us?
16 comments :
The first meeting is actually to take place one week thereafter, on Wednesday the 23rd!
Are there any plans to broadcast these meetings on the Internet so that there is a potential for global participation?
Sounds interesting - I'd like to join in.
"Don't believe in science"?!
come on.
Thats just a accusation against those who contend about a small number of conclusions in origin subjects!
In other words IF you don't accept these conclusions then your out of civilized society!
All evolutionists have to do is be articulate and accurate about methodology and logic and conclusions regarding evolution or any opposition to biblical truths.
Remember however it breeds critics demanding the same audience. No more censorship in word or spirit.
Science has no place in the progress of society. Sounds like a extra motives behind what is or is not science? Science is just for what it is. No politics. it corrupts it surely.
Just as creationists charged for two centuries now.
Evolution was desired by hostile British establishment people to Christianity and ever since.
Progress in society is someone else getting their way on issues.
Not progress to everyone.
Anyways good luck to your group .
I do believe the more attention to origin contentions there is will lead to truth over error.
I think we YEC/ID gain thereby. Anyways good luck .
Good news! Byers won't be showing up to your meeting.
Something I've noticed said publicly by both anthropogenic climate-change deniers and opponents to same-sex marriage, once they finally start to step back from their original positions, is that the other side did themselves no favours with the stridency of their approach. But whether such comments should be considered at face value, or dismissed as retrospective attempts to save face, I'm not so sure.
Or confirmation bias. It only takes a few strident types to provide all the evidence one needs, if tone is the means by which one determines position on sundry matters, and one can conveniently ignore the opposing moderates and one's own loudmouths. Better yet, one can provoke people to be more forthright, if the evidence is initially lacking.
The distribution of tone on both sides can be safely ignored for the purposes of finding the feeblest possible argument for holding one's position!
Robert, I heard the Moon was made of cheese, can you confirm that?
Robert, are you planning on attending this meeting ?
But don't we need a balanced representation of all viewpoints ?
Especially a balanced representation of all unbalanced viewpoints?
Sometimes I imagine that Byers is not the drooling idiot he comes across as online.
This would be a chance to dispel this disturbing fantasy for once and for all.
Well said Allan. Can I take that as a quote? :)
You have quite an imagination.
Could someone please translate Robert's comments into English?
Sorry, I don't like to make comments like that under a pseudonym.
Dave Bailey
Post a Comment