Support NeoGAF

[videogamer]

In the aftermath of the November presidential election and talk of a Bush administration mandate, some people on the right of the political spectrum believe the government has a greater responsibility to heed their views. In some cases, that means changes in the images that define the nation — including those at some of the nation's most popular parks and monuments.

For roughly a decade, a film has been shown to visitors at Washington's Lincoln Memorial, depicting historic events that have taken place there — from civil rights marches to antiwar demonstrations.

The film shows a number of marches with liberal themes like gay rights and abortion rights, intercut with older clips of historical figures like former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Marian Anderson.

Then, one day the Rev. Lou Sheldon saw it.

"It showed only those liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marches," said Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

Sheldon's influential Christian conservative group took its complaint to the government's top levels — "so they could reach down and work their system and cleanse in a proper manner and make it fair and balanced," he said.

Sheldon would like film of some conservative marches intercut as well, though it is unclear whether any major conservative marches have taken place at the Lincoln Memorial itself, which is the film's focus.

The National Park Service is currently reviewing the contents of the film and debating whether it should remove images that Sheldon finds inappropriate — including, for example, one visual of a protester holding a sign reading: "The Lord is my shepherd and knows I'm gay."

Park bookstores at the Grand Canyon now sell the book "Grand Canyon: A Different View," which contradicts science, saying the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah.

The book was written by a "born again" river guide who writes that his view of the canyon's being millions of years old changed after he "met the Lord. Now, I have 'a different view' of the Canyon, which, according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than about a few thousand years old."

"During the Clinton administration, it's like we felt like we lived in outer Siberia," Sheldon said, "and [during] this past administration, it's like we died and went to heaven and got a preview of what's to come."

It's often said that history is written by the winners. Some of these conservatives — with the November elections in mind — hope that will be the case.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=273668&page=1

 

[bishoptl]

I thought it was an Onion article. I hoped it was an Onion article. Then I saw the link.

*moves into own basement*

 

[Ned Flanders]

Park bookstores at the Grand Canyon now sell the book "Grand Canyon: A Different View," which contradicts science, saying the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah.

The mind BOGGLES.

EDIT:

Sheldon's influential Christian conservative group took its complaint to the government's top levels — "so they could reach down and work their system and cleanse in a proper manner and make it fair and balanced," he said.

Any suprise that this phrase made an appearance?

 

[demon]

Park bookstores at the Grand Canyon now sell the book "Grand Canyon: A Different View," which contradicts science, saying the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah.

The book was written by a "born again" river guide who writes that his view of the canyon's being millions of years old changed after he "met the Lord. Now, I have 'a different view' of the Canyon, which, according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than about a few thousand years old."

Simply appalling. It's hard to believe there are still people with such archaic, mentally retarded views of the world.

America is going down the shitter, and I'm becoming more and more embarrassed to call myself an American.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I thought it was an Onion article. I hoped it was an Onion article. Then I saw the link.

Me too.

 

[Azih]

hhahahahahaah HAHAHAHAHAH hahaha

ahah
hah
ahhhhh.

ehehehe.

oh man.

Edit: I agree with the other posters here, in a sane world that would be a parody article, not real news.

there is no reason for theonion to exist anymore.

 

[tedtropy]

Park bookstores at the Grand Canyon now sell the book "Grand Canyon: A Different View," which contradicts science, saying the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah.

Little do they all realize that the Grand Canyon is, in fact, just the butt crack of the most evil Transformer of them all....UNICRON!!!

 

[xsarien]

The religious right is going to be the downfall of this country.

 

[DarienA]

<bangs head against desk>

WHY?!!??!?!?!

 

[Fatghost]

Every day, in every way, the US just becomes a bigger joke.

 

[carbonbased]

The article had a whole two "religious conservatives" quoted. Big deal.

 

[Nerevar]

The article had a whole two "religious conservatives" quoted. Big deal.

Yes, and it also mentioned how there have already been changes that their complaining has brought about. The Lincoln memorial is reviewing their tape and the Grand Canyon already sells a book about how the great flood (!) created it.

 

[paul777]

The religious right isn't ruining the country. The lack of opposition to them is what will ruin the country. I am fairly sure social liberals outnumber these religious fascists, but until we become as ruthless in our cause as they are we will not win. Might makes right, after all.

 

[videogamer]

Yes, and it also mentioned how there have already been changes that their complaining has brought about. The Lincoln memorial is reviewing their tape and the Grand Canyon already sells a book about how the great flood (!) created it.

Yep, it doesn't matter how many of the conservatives are complaining about it... just look at how effective they have been (and will be). Furthermore, I wouldn't be suprised if they could rally a shitload of supporters over these issues. Sheldon actually seems to be pretty influential already.

 

[Pimpwerx]

The people running that Grand Canyon bookstore should be ashamed of themselves for carrying such a stupid fucking book. That's my only concern since these Bible-thumpers have been saying all that other stuff for years. Just that no one really paid them any mind b/c they're nuts. But any book proclaiming a natural landscape to have been formed by divine intervention should be burned. I don't endorse book burning, but this is one of them. I mean, of all the stupid shit I've heard recently, that takes the cake. That's almost as bad as those Georgia "teachers" pushing for creationism to be taught. It's one thing to wallow in your own ignorance, it's another to push that same idiocy off on others. Serenity now. PEACE.

 

[Nerevar]

The religious right isn't ruining the country. The lack of opposition to them is what will ruin the country. I am fairly sure social liberals outnumber these religious fascists, but until we become as ruthless in our cause as they are we will not win. Might makes right, after all.

Looking at the relative ease at which states were able to pass constitutional amendments against homosexual marriage, I wish you were right but I doubt it. Hell, I know a lot of people in the "intellectual elite" who sympathize more with the religious right than the social liberals.

 

[xsarien]

The religious right isn't ruining the country. The lack of opposition to them is what will ruin the country. I am fairly sure social liberals outnumber these religious fascists, but until we become as ruthless in our cause as they are we will not win. Might makes right, after all.

Hey, you know what? Everytime someone does stand up to them, they shriek and moan about how doing so somehow steps on their freedom to practice religion.

As if codifying their beliefs into civil law - as if dictating how we should ALL act, regardless of our religion - is part of their practice. It makes me physically ill.

 

[Azih]

The religious right isn't ruining the country. The lack of opposition to them is what will ruin the country. I am fairly sure social liberals outnumber these religious fascists, but until we become as ruthless in our cause as they are we will not win. Might makes right, after all.

Uhuh, you become ruthless and you will be seen as a loony lefty liberal extremist while ruthless conservatives are seen as religous, moral people upholding values.

You guys are punked PR wise. I have no idea how you'd reverse it.

 

[videogamer]

Uhuh, you become ruthless and you will be seen as a loony lefty liberal extremist while ruthless conservatives are seen as religous, moral people upholding values.

Dunno, I find the "ruthless conservatives" pretty creepy myself. Unfortunately, I don't see the Republican party pushing them out any time soon. The non religious ones I know are embarrassed of them, but don't seem to mind sharing/giving control of the party. At least liberals have the Green party. :/

 

[Dilbert]

The religious right isn't ruining the country. The lack of opposition to them is what will ruin the country. I am fairly sure social liberals outnumber these religious fascists, but until we become as ruthless in our cause as they are we will not win. Might makes right, after all.

I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and I really don't know how liberals are supposed to fight back. The religious right offers people a comforting pipe dream...what exactly are liberals supposed to offer in return? Most people WANT to believe that they are chosen, that there is something more than this limited life full of struggle, even if it's at worst a load of shit and at best a hopeful hypothesis which can't be tested until after they die. Compared to that kind of fairy tale "I can eat all the cake I want and not get fat" vision of an afterlife, how can social responsibility be as motivating?

The other big problem is that the core values on both sides cause liberals to end up losing. Religious people are convinced that their way is 100% correct and divinely inspired and protected, and what they do to those who disagree is limited only by the human frailties of those in charge. Liberals, on the other hand, will defend to the death the right of the other side to make plans to destroy them.

It's like watching a pacifist get into a fistfight...do you want to guess what his face looks like when he "wins?"

Finally, religion is based on faith, which BY DEFINITION is not rational. How do you win an argument with someone when their response is, "God told me otherwise?"

 

[Azih]

Dunno, I find the "ruthless conservatives" pretty creepy myself.

Well you see the Bush campaign scored a ton of points by labelling Kerry as a snobby liberal from Massecheusets, if Kerry had attempted to paint Bush as a crazy Texan he would have come off as arrogant and elitist. I don't think you can play tit for tat here. Hating libruls is much more acceptable than hating conservatives (people who do come out and say Bush is a crazy texas hick don't get much respect on the evening news). Hell it's impossible to sink to the 'Liberals are hiding under your bed' level even if you want to do so.

 

[videogamer]

I don't know about "hating" being "acceptable" in either direction. It may be more acceptable to a set of people, but I don't know if it would apply to society in general. However, I agree that something needs to be done. The word "liberal" isn't such a bad thing around the world, so why should be in this country? Hopefully more people in everyday life will be willing to identify themselves as liberal (or "progressive") in order to humanize liberals. Also, promoting our causes in positive light may help too. Many of the "Brand Democrat" ideas can be used for some of the liberal issues.

http://oliverwillis.com/branddemocrat/

 

[geogaddi]

Park bookstores at the Grand Canyon now sell the book "Grand Canyon: A Different View," which contradicts science, saying the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah. That's my only concern since these Bible-thumpers have been saying all that other stuff for years. Just that no one really paid them any mind b/c they're nuts. But any book proclaiming a natural landscape to have been formed by divine intervention should be burned. I don't endorse book burning, but this is one of them. I mean, of all the stupid shit I've heard recently, that takes the cake. That's almost as bad as those Georgia "teachers" pushing for creationism to be taught. It's one thing to wallow in your own ignorance, it's another to push that same idiocy off on others. Serenity now. PEACE.

Should all these people burn their PhD work and their contributions to science?

scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography


Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientsts are sorted by birth year.

Early
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F. B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
Charles Babbage (1792–1871) Operations research; Computer science; Ophthalmoscope (old-earth compromiser*)
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
John Murray (1808–1892) Publisher
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
George Romanes (1848–1894) Biology; Physiology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
A. Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

SOURCE

(sarcasm) All of them certaintly MUST be ignorant (/sarcasm).

 

[Triumph]

Should all these people burn their PhD work and their contributions to science?

Yes. The foundation of science is questioning. Religion(in particular Christianity) leaves no room for questioning many things. Things are the way they happened in the Bible, period. It is fundamentally impossible to be both an Evangelical Christian and a serious scientist.

 

[geogaddi]

Yes. The foundation of science is questioning. Religion(in particular Christianity) leaves no room for questioning many things. Things are the way they happened in the Bible, period. It is fundamentally impossible to be both an Evangelical Christian and a serious scientist.

That sucks.
Dr. R.V. Damadian was the inventor of the MRI Scanner which probably has saved millions of lives and he's a "serious scientist". I don't think he was limited in his "question asking" at all.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I have nothing againt the work of these folks, but it's not like they're all revered for their contrubutions to geology, biology, or natural history, either.

I don't take the word of a nuclear physicist about matters of human biology, either.

 

[RiZ III]

Park bookstores at the Grand Canyon now sell the book "Grand Canyon: A Different View," which contradicts science, saying the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah.

 

[Flynn]

That sucks.
Dr. R.V. Damadian was the inventor of the MRI Scanner which probably has saved millions of lives and he's a "serious scientist". I don't think he was limited in his "question asking" at all.

The MRI is an affront to God.

The good lord created every part of bodies, including our afflictions. We should sing a haleluia when we are sick and dance hosannas when his goodly tumors do rupture our Earthen flesh.

For he has blessed us with all manner of illness so that we may return to his busom and eternal happiness.

Sermon over.

 

[Dilbert]

Should all these people burn their PhD work and their contributions to science?

(sarcasm) All of them certaintly MUST be ignorant (/sarcasm).

Having a Ph.D. does not mean that you are infallibly correct, or even likely to be right. It means that you have demonstrated capability in an specialized area of knowledge. Printing a list of names of people who have advanced degrees who allegedly believe in a hypothesis does not make it any more credible...it's a well-known logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority." (In some cases, I don't even get the authority. "Tropical fruit expert?")

 

[SlickWilly223]

As a conservative and a Catholic, let me just say that these religous people are not quite right.

 

[levious]

Printing a list of names of people who have advanced degrees who allegedly believe in a hypothesis does not make it any more credible...it's a well-known logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority." (In some cases, I don't even get the authority. "Tropical fruit expert?")

It's a very misleading tactic as well. Many scientists who "believe" in creationism, do so within a spiritual/religious context... in other words, they are capable of separating earthly reality from what they "believe" about religion. Not sure if I'm being clear, but one of my professors when I was studying anthropology was also a devote Catholic... and I asked him once if he ever felt conflicted, specifically about evolution. His response was, "no, not at all, my religious beliefs have nothing to do with my scientific ones." He can acknowledge facts about evolution while still following the truths of the bible. I wish more people could grasp this.

 

[carbonbased]

The MRI is an affront to God.

The good lord created every part of bodies, including our afflictions. We should sing a haleluia when we are sick and dance hosannas when his goodly tumors do rupture our Earthen flesh.

For he has blessed us with all manner of illness so that we may return to his busom and eternal happiness.

Sermon over.

Shut up.

 

[Mumbles]

(sarcasm) All of them certaintly MUST be ignorant (/sarcasm).

Frankly, if you're going to advocate a theory that was disproven centuries ago, then yes, you're ignorant about the subject, or possibly deceitful. Young-earth creationism belongs alongside lamarkism or the earth as the center of the universe. It's a long-dead idea with all evidence falling it. Yes, sometimes fanatics of one sort or another dig them up (eg. YEC for fundies, Lamarkism for Stalin and Lysenko), but that certainly doesn't make them worth more than a brief mention in any scientific textbook.

And as an engineer, I find the fact that you have so many engineers on your list to make it nearly worthless. We aren't scientists.

 

[scorcho]

That sucks.
Dr. R.V. Damadian was the inventor of the MRI Scanner which probably has saved millions of lives and he's a "serious scientist". I don't think he was limited in his "question asking" at all.

being a neurosurgeon who believes in creationism doesn't matter. what matters are scientists who are using their positions to <b>prove scientifically</b> that Noah and the Arc existed, that evolution is wrong, and that creationism is the sole truth.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Engineers, at least in my experience, are very often religious. They aren't scientists; an inquisitive nature is not a requisite part of the job. A good engineer treats his textbooks and the output of his CAD software as gospel, and memorizes every last psalm.

 

[MetatronM]

Sheldon would like film of some conservative marches intercut as well, though it is unclear whether any major conservative marches have taken place at the Lincoln Memorial itself, which is the film's focus.

:lol

Perhaps Rev. Sheldon should get in his Wayback Machine and start a protest at the Lincoln Memorial in the 1950s so that they can have some film footage.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Should all these people burn their PhD work and their contributions to science?



(sarcasm) All of them certaintly MUST be ignorant (/sarcasm).

No, but they should probably hang their heads in shame. I was very religious until my senior year in high school. Even then, I could never accept creationism except by applying the copout that God is nature, and therefore, the "7 days" actually took "4.5 billion years" thing. Otherwise, I was very much into science, and there was a lot that conflicted with my understanding of the universe. If you are a famous scientist and you go around trying to claim that commonly accepted things like erosion and whatnot are the work of god, then I think you kill any credibility you have. You have to accept if some of science is right, that a large chunk of it is right IMO. I mean, things really only start breaking down on a subatomic level. Science will eventually triumph over religion. That's my hope at least. We can model so much of our universe already, and none of it needs a god to make it work. It seems pretty obvious, but what do I know? Science doesn't require faith. PEACE.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Engineers, at least in my experience, are very often religious. They aren't scientists; an inquisitive nature is not a requisite part of the job. A good engineer treats his textbooks and the output of his CAD software as gospel, and memorizes every last psalm.

Now you've crossed the line. Troubleshooting. You need to troubleshoot any design, and if you're not inquisitive, you're not always gonna find the bug in the works. And the religious guys I knew at RPI were all programmers...but that goes without saying. Coding is half skill, half faith. :lol PEACE.

 

[geogaddi]

Having a Ph.D. does not mean that you are infallibly correct, or even likely to be right. It means that you have demonstrated capability in an specialized area of knowledge. Printing a list of names of people who have advanced degrees who allegedly believe in a hypothesis does not make it any more credible...it's a well-known logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."

Surely, if I tried to prove that creationism is true because of a list of people, I WOULD be commiting the logical fallacy of appealing to authority BUT if you examine my purpose of listing those people, it is not to prove that creationism is true (this was the assumption) but rather, it was to show pimpwerx's statement

It's one thing to wallow in your own ignorance, it's another to push that same idiocy off on others

as being questionable in light of the list of people that have demonstrated anything but ignorance. I agree with you "having a PhD does not mean you are infallibly correct or even likely to be right"...but keep in mind, then this means that it applies to ALL scientists, including non-creationist scientists. So, we remain in the same plane.

And as an engineer, I find the fact that you have so many engineers on your list to make it nearly worthless. We aren't scientists.

I find it hard to believe that all engineers fall in the same category. In other words; one can't be the prime example for all (you used the term "we" on behalf of all engineers).

Plus, it is absurd to think that all engineers can't possibly contribute to science or cause breakthroughs in scientific advancements (heck, Alfred B. Nobel (1833–1896), the Swedish chemist and engineer who invented dynamite).

It's also absurd to think that all engineers have no say in science, especially if their engineering degrees required the study of science in their field. (example: My brother in law is a neuropsychologist that is also an engineer for a company that designs lab/hospital equipment that analyzes electrical pulses on the brain). This doesn't mean that all engineers are like this but merely just to show that the "engineer VS scientist" ordeal is just a vague and unnecessary issue.

 

[geogaddi]

being a neurosurgeon who believes in creationism doesn't matter. what matters are scientists who are using their positions to <b>prove scientifically</b> that Noah and the Arc existed, that evolution is wrong, and that creationism is the sole truth.

Great point, suffice to say that is the reason why creationism has been making much noise. Just skim through some of these topics. An evolutionist can learn a lot about the creationist's camp there.

 

[Flynn]

Shut up.

Matthew 5:39

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Yes, and it also mentioned how there have already been changes that their complaining has brought about. The Lincoln memorial is reviewing their tape and the Grand Canyon already sells a book about how the great flood (!) created it.

I don't think it's necessarily bad that there's a book about the Biblical flood creating the canyon. I just think we need to hurry up and write the alternatives to sit beside it, like Zeus Beat the Shit Out of the Ground, and Water Did It: Without Any Goddamned Help.

 

[Mumbles]

I find it hard to believe that all engineers fall in the same category. In other words; one can't be the prime example for all (you used the term "we" on behalf of all engineers).

Yes, I was, and "we" aren't. Saying "I've got a degree in engineering" says nothing about your ability as a scientist. If the person did work as a scientist, then you don't bother to list that he has a degree in engineering, or that he's studied linguistics or has invented something, when you're discussing his agreement with a scientific theory. It's like saying "Tis guy can fix your car - he's a fisherman." Yes, he *may* be able to fix a car, but if he could, why did you tell me that he's a fisherman?

 

[Hitokage]

as being questionable in light of the list of people that have demonstrated anything but ignorance. I agree with you "having a PhD does not mean you are infallibly correct or even likely to be right"...but keep in mind, then this means that it applies to ALL scientists, including non-creationist scientists. So, we remain in the same plane.

The flying fuck we are. With evolution being one of the most supported and tested theories in all of science, those who counter it by taking the writings of 4000 year old men as literal infallable truth hardly match up. SUPPORT is what matters, it ultimately doesn't matter WHO you are or what you've done before... status alone means nothing to a claim's veracity. There are no authorities in science.

Great point, suffice to say that is the reason why creationism has been making much noise. Just skim through some of these topics. An evolutionist can learn a lot about the creationist's camp there.

Creationism has been making noise as a larger push by fundamentalist christians in an reactionary attack on science and liberalism. The recent trend of "Intelligent Design" is just their new method to not get immediately smacked down in court on first amendment grounds.

 

[videogamer]

I don't think it's necessarily bad that there's a book about the Biblical flood creating the canyon. I just think we need to hurry up and write the alternatives to sit beside it, like Zeus Beat the Shit Out of the Ground, and Water Did It: Without Any Goddamned Help.

It would be interesting. Can you imagine the noise that would erupt if those books were placed next to the one mentioned in the article?

 

[Phoenix]

The people running that Grand Canyon bookstore should be ashamed of themselves for carrying such a stupid fucking book. That's my only concern since these Bible-thumpers have been saying all that other stuff for years. Just that no one really paid them any mind b/c they're nuts. But any book proclaiming a natural landscape to have been formed by divine intervention should be burned. I don't endorse book burning, but this is one of them. I mean, of all the stupid shit I've heard recently, that takes the cake. That's almost as bad as those Georgia "teachers" pushing for creationism to be taught. It's one thing to wallow in your own ignorance, it's another to push that same idiocy off on others. Serenity now. PEACE.

The difference, of course, being that no one has to buy the book from the Grand Canyon store.

 

[gblues]

With evolution being one of the most supported and tested theories in all of science

Bullshit.

Give me a link to ONE PAPER where speciation has occurred under observation.

Evolution is a plausible theory, certainly, but it isn't tested and it's barely supported. Hell, I still cringe whenever I'm watching some nature program and the narrator says something incredibly stupid like "the such-and-such evolved +10 fangs of poison for rapid kills" as if whatever creature it is sat and said to itself, "my food keeps getting away from me. I know! I'll grow these fangs that drip nasty poison! Ooh, that's much better!"

I'm sorry, but it takes more faith to believe in evolution (as an origin theory, anyway) than it does to believe that God created it all in a week.

Nathan

 

[DDayton]

There are no authorities in science.

Er... if your statement is correct, doesn't it logically follow that nothing in science can be taken to be true, as there is no authority (person or system) by which to prove it? (I know that's not what you mean, but it is what you said!)

A question, though, for everyone... in all honest, why does it matter if people believe in evolution versus any other theory (or speculation) that they prefer? What bearing does it really have on anything they encounter in the world? For that matter, why would it matter if a scientist believe in the theory of evolution or not -- in what branch of scientific research is the acceptance of evolution necessary for work... other than in writing about evolution? One can make all of the same observations about human remains, DNA strands, and the age of particles floating around the planet without necessarily accepting the premise that life evolved, right? I don't really see how the fight is worth fighting... if folks are trying to dispute things which can be directly proven and are completely relevant, that's a different matter... but why does it matter if folks disbelieve evolution?

 

[explodet]

in what branch of scientific research is the acceptance of evolution necessary for work... other than in writing about evolution?

Paleontology?
(Would you believe there's an episode of Friends that covers this?)

... but why does it matter if folks disbelieve evolution?

Let me see if I can answer this one.

The current scientific climate accepts the theory of evolution as the best working model given the facts. Not that there aren't other theories out there - the late Stephen Jay Gould was a punctualist, for example. That's where species don't change for long periods of time, then all of a sudden undergo drastic shifts in their genotypes. It still take a long time for change to occur, but not as much time as regular evolution.

Reaching different conclusions with the evidence isn't the problem. However, scientists have an issue with some people trying to push away evolution and replace it with a theory that ignores given evidence. Creationism, for example.

A few centuries ago, any science that looked to be pagan or atheistic was frowned upon. Galileo was one such unlucky scientist that got branded a heretic for his work. Galileo wasn't anti-God, he was just in the right place at the wrong time. The Catholic orthodoxy made Galileo recant his works.

Many modern day laypersons - and quite a few scientists - hear this story and reach the conclusion that religion had become the anti-scientific boogeyman. Now these same people see a movement to introduce teachings that are religiously-based, and don't want to revisit the days of scientists not revealing new observations for fear of being persecuted.

I hope I'm making sense, it IS 6am.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Let's burn all books about Paul Bunyon. Didn't they say he created the grand canyon by dragging his pick-axe?

You guys are seriously overreacting. Its not like this book will appeal to anyone but religious whackos anyway. Plus, I'm sure other government-funded institutions sell crap about astrology, and similar sources of misinformation, but you don't hear people complaining about that.