Andy Schlafly #fundie

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

[In Conservapedia's article on 'Scientist']

A scientist is someone who practices science. Scientists who have tenure at universities, however, are often liberal atheists, as faculties today are hostile to people like Isaac Newton or Louis Pasteur who were inspired by their faith.

39 comments

old comment by dionysus

Scientists who have tenure at universities, however, are often liberal atheists

So what? Science doesn't care what your politics are or religion (or lack thereof) is. Besides, if the more educated people tend to be atheist and liberal then that's not exactly a point for your side. In fact, to keep with the soccer analogy from your previous post, this is a bit of an own goal.

faculties today are hostile to people like Isaac Newton or Louis Pasteur who were inspired by their faith

Nobody is bothered by people being inspired by faith. If believing in unicorns inspires you to discover a better surgical technique then have at it. Now, if someone stubbornly clings to faith and rejects evidence and theories because they conflict with their faith then we have a problem.

old comment by

Newton's three laws of motion are still valid science; they can be tested and used to make predictions that when compared to the evidence in the natural world would still be found to be valid. The planetary positions follow these laws and the laws are confirmed as being valid.

Newton's calculus is still valid mathematics; it can be tested and used to make predictions that when compared to the evidence in the natural world would still be found to be valid.

If Newton's only evidence for planetary motion was "goddidit", this cannot be tested, validated, or used to make predictions about anything in the natural world, and yes, this would be rejected as it is NOT scientific.

Whatever personal religious beliefs Newton and Pasteur had may have been inspirational for them, but these beliefs were not used as the "evidence" to prove their hypothesis correct.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

For someone who graduated from Princeton with a BSE in electrical engineering; also a certificate in engineering physics, you'd clearly know what's what, who's who & the way things go at universities.

And clearly pissed that you never progressed beyond such - say, a Ph.D - that'd get you a place at MIT or NASA/JPL; the fact you were at Harvard with the now Leader of the Free World being the least of your problems.

Seems we're seeing Andy Schaftafly for what he is: the ultimate contrarian. Because he didn't get very far in science, why should anyone else, is what he's basically saying - or specifically, venting - via his crusty wanking sock in HTML form that is Conservapoodia.

...oh, and as for 'faculties today are hostile to people like Isaac Newton or Louis Pasteur who were inspired by their faith', got news for ya, Andy: Buzz Aldrin. He performed the first religious ceremony on another world, soon after he'd landed the LEM 'Eagle' on that day in 1969. He did so, as he's a Presbyterian Christian. Six years before, he'd earned a Ph.D at MIT. Yes, that's right Andy Schaftafly: that's Dr. Buzz Aldrin to you. Seems his faith was no impediment to ultimately becoming a space scientist, so there's your argument sent to the Moon! [/Princess Luna]

He's also a Republican. One of your kind - a Conservative - only not; in specific set of beliefs - Protestant - and yet, being a Scientist who can reconcile his faith with proven facts: Reality.

Enjoy your paradox, Andy Schaftafly.

@Goomy pls

Like I say, Dr. Aldrin is a space scientist who is also a Christian. And a Conservative, at that. Head 'splodyness in the Schaftafly household time, methinks! >:D

old comment by emau99

I love it when fundies try to take credit for the great scientists of the past.

Pasteur and Newton were "inspired by their faith", huh?

How? Show me the relevant passage(s) in the Bible that led Pasteur to germ theory.

Newton spent much of his career in a fruitless quest to find the philosopher's stone. Was that also inspired by his faith?

Here's a better question: Assuming for the sake of argument that ALL the great scientists of the world throughout history have been the exact same flavor of Christian as you--yet *you've* never made any kind of measurable contribution to human knowledge--how does that give YOU bragging rights?

It doesn't. You're trying to claim credit for the work of others. I can't think of anything more lazily dishonest than that.

As for your jab at university faculties--if you can't get your bullshit past the peer review process, maybe that's a sign that you're wrong? Maybe, instead of crying about it, you should revisit your beliefs. It'll make you a better person. Not that that's saying much.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

As SpukiKitty has contacted the Department of Redundancy Department, and Qazamir McSnarky Britches called Captain Obvious via the not-Cold Phone already, I'll simply say - to Andy Schaftafly's startling insight thus:

"A scientist is someone who practices science"

...therefore, as a certain Mr. Holmes would say, upon examining a toilet bowl containing just water:

image

Just be glad, Andy, that it's Dinsdale; who - with hammer in one hand & very long nails in the other - is approaching you. You wouldn't want it to be his brother Doug doing the same, if you value your head's current physiological location, even though very soon it's going to be in a rather permanently - and painfully - close proximity to the floor. >:D

old comment by Shockna

"Of course science nowadays is hostile to Isaac Newton. If he hadn't discovered his theory of gravity, he would have been just another superstitious yokel involved in bizarre experiments who had faded from memory. "

This is nonsense. Modern science isn't hostile to Newton at all. Andy up there is lying. Newton was superstitious (as was virtually everyone in that era, and today for that matter), but it's hardly fair to characterize him as "just another yokel". Newton had a brilliant mind; one of the most brilliant ever to have survived into history, I'd say. He made many important discoveries other than gravity (and his alchemical experiments were, if I recall, his attempt to systematize chemistry like he did for physics; he was going at it entirely the wrong way, of course, but I don't see it as reason to look down on Newton).

If Andy had been around in the 17th century, he'd be demanding Newton be killed or imprisoned for his heterodox beliefs (Newton was an Arian, and did not believe in the trinity).

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

39 comments

Confused?