Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Chris Mooney — Valiant defender of scientific truth

William Dembski
October 9, 2006
Culture, Intelligent Design, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Yes, this is the same Chris Mooney who attacks ID and has written THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE:

Chris Mooney ’99 recently spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on behalf of the Campus Freethought Alliance (CFA). Mooney, who is copresident and a founding member of the Yale College Society for Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics, addressed the issue of discrimination against those who don’t believe in God. Mooney interned with the CFA over the summer, where he helped draft the organization’s “Bill of Rights for Unbelievers.”

Source: http://www.yale.edu/opa/ybc/campusnotes.html.

Comments
Austinite:
Jehu, regarding ” right from wrong” (BTW, Sladjo, simply typing them in capital letters does not imbue those words with some extra cosmic significance). I find it strange that you think that atheists believe that life has no meaning. Have you ever met one? They may not believe in God, but they have just as much a sense of right and wrong, good and evil as any religious person, and perhaps more in some cases.
That is completely false. According to athiesm life has no meaning and is the result of purely random chance. Therefore, wrong and right, good and evil, are merely social constructs with no objective reality. If you are an athiest and believe in good and evil and think you know the difference between right and wrong, you are merely borrowing values from the Christian society in which you were raised. You are living on the memory of Christianity. If want an idea of an athiestic society that makes the logical leap from Chrisitan values to athiestic values, observe Stalin's USSR, China's cultural revolution, and Pol Pot's Cambodia.Jehu
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Darwinian evolution would have us believe that our worldly desires are good b... Darwinian evolution does not attempt to tell us what is morally "good" or "bad".franky172
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
By the way. To see MacNeill's attacks on Dembski, google the two names. Also- you can see his attacks on Denyse and Bill here in his comment on the thread about Dennett and his move to try to bring Christians into the NDE camp. He said neither of them had any morals at all, that no one took them seriously, and much more. Personal attacks from a college professor are great. Too bad he is shaping young minds. Let's not deny MacNeill's complete incivility, no matter if he held that summer ID/NDE course or not. His comments here and elsewhere show his true colors.JasonTheGreek
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
MacNeill calling someone arrogant. That is hilarious! So, professor- I guess from your comment, we CAN conclude that Darwinism leads to atheism, right? Since so many in the NAS are atheists and agnostics, TRUE science must lead to atheism. You seem to always want to have it both ways. After your comment attacking Denyse and Bill as not having any moral fiber at all, I'm surprised they still allow you to post your arrogant tripe. You're one of the arrogant professors they speak of when people talk about the elitist attitude on modern college campuses, Al. For the rest of you- I'd ignore anything this blowhard has to say. His vile attacks on Dr. Dembski disqualifies him from civil discourse in itself.JasonTheGreek
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill, I am having a tough time finding any references to a requirement that, "to do good science, a person must be a Christian believer". Is anyone positing that position? Who and where? I am also a bit confused by your statement "By the criteria listed in most of these comments, all Buddhists would qualify as having no morals, ethics, or meaning in their lives." What comments above would lead to such a conclusion? Correct me if I am wrong, but Buddhists believe in the immaterial soul, right and wrong (good or bad karma), good and evil, and certainly a purpose to live that is real, as opposed to a purpose we create for ourselves. From Wiki: "According to Gautama Buddha, any person can follow his example and become enlightened through the study of his words "Dharma" and putting them into practice, by leading a virtuous, moral life, and purifying the mind." Note the "virtuous, moral life" reference. In fact, I cannot think of any inconsistencies between Buddhism and ID. The very concept of universal design and purpose fits perfectly, best I can tell. Now, Buddhism vs. Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution would have us believe that our worldly desires are good because they are programmed into us so that, by following them, we will survive and our genes will pass to the next generation. Buddhism instructs just the opposite. It holds that suffering is caused by desires and their pursuit (Noble Truth 1 and 2), so we must be freed by the fading away and cessation of such desires (Noble Truth 3). Are these two worldviews not diametrically opposed? Besides, whether speaking of Christianity or Buddhism, the idea of being transformed and rising to a higher level, and separating oneself from the distractions of this world, simply do not and cannot make any sense to a true materialist.Ekstasis
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Also, when was it decided (and by whom) that to do good science, a person must be a Christian believer? Seems a little odd, doesn't it, that the majority of the members of the National Academies of Science of all of the major nations on the planet are either atheists or agnostics (I know, you don't believe it, so check out Graffin, G. (2004) Evolution, monism, atheism, and the naturalist world-view. Polypterus Press, Ithaca, NY, 252 pp.) In fact, there is no correlation between the quality of a person's work in science and their personal religious beliefs. None whatsoever.Allen_MacNeill
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
By the criteria listed in most of these comments, all Buddhists would qualify as having no morals, ethics, or meaning in their lives. Odd, don't you think, that a way of life chosen by hundreds of millions of people worldwide would have those characteristics? They must be the ones who are deluded, right? And therefore, they should be excluded from any moral consideration, intellectual discussion, etc. The arrogance of some Christians is beyond comprehension...Allen_MacNeill
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
What does being an atheist have to do with being an critic of Intelligent Design? I thought that one's religious beliefs was supposed to have little bearing on the validity of the ID theory. Since you claim that ID does not posit the nature of the designer, it is perfectly feasible to be an ID supporter and an atheist. For all we know, we could all be part of some grand experiment being run from a science lab on a planet orbiting Betelgeuse. How are we supposed to tell the difference other than "feelings"? Jehu, regarding " right from wrong" (BTW, Sladjo, simply typing them in capital letters does not imbue those words with some extra cosmic significance). I find it strange that you think that atheists believe that life has no meaning. Have you ever met one? They may not believe in God, but they have just as much a sense of right and wrong, good and evil as any religious person, and perhaps more in some cases. For example, when a religious person sacrifices their life for their child, they do so with the belief that they will continue to exist beyond death and have faith that they will be rewarded for their sacrifice. When an atheist does the same, they have no such comfort. They believe they will just cease to exist. Who's is the more selfless act? ID proponents often get upset when they are characterized as just being motivated by their religious beliefs. So using the same tactics in return would seem to undermine any high ground ID might have in that regard.austinite
October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Sladjo, Bertrand Russel, if I am not mistaken, would say "By my feelings". We all know where that ends.Mats
October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
And, to continue Jehu's idea, how do they know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG ?...Sladjo
October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
A bigger question is why do atheists bother with anything other than perhaps eating, sleeping, defefacting, and "continuing their genetic matter." What I mean is, if life has no meaning, if there is no right or wrong, no good or evil, how can they possibly complain about a violation of their rights? On what basis do they make the complaint? How do they posit that any such rights exists and if they do exist why should anybody care if they are violated?Jehu
October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Why are atheists such whiny babies ? Do they even know what real discrimination is ?jwrennie
October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply