Comments on: IDnet Roadshow Hutch http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/07/29/idnet-roadshow-hutch/ Wed, 20 May 2009 21:50:08 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: IDnet Roadshow Hutch « Brock Wichita http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/07/29/idnet-roadshow-hutch/#comment-2435 IDnet Roadshow Hutch « Brock Wichita Mon, 14 May 2007 03:25:02 +0000 https://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/07/29/idnet-roadshow-hutch/#comment-2435 [...] July 29, 2006 at 12:00 am | In Defending Science |  This was originally posted here on July 29, 2006 at the “Defending Science, Scientists, and Non-Scientists” [...] [...] July 29, 2006 at 12:00 am | In Defending Science |  This was originally posted here on July 29, 2006 at the “Defending Science, Scientists, and Non-Scientists” [...]

]]> By: garote http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/07/29/idnet-roadshow-hutch/#comment-122 garote Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:13:38 +0000 https://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/07/29/idnet-roadshow-hutch/#comment-122 Arrrgh. The more I listen to this guy peddling his lecture, the more angry I become with him. "Teach the controversy!", huh? I'm a software engineer, and what this guy reminds me of is Steve Ballmer on a podium, slapping his first in his palm and shouting, "Developers developers developers!!" Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. How dare he invoke "the intentions of the founding fathers" as justification for corrupting the practice of science on religious grounds. I wonder what part of the phrase "congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion" he doesn't understand. His angle? He says that congress is endorsing the "religion" of materialistic atheism by disallowing "alternate theories" in science classrooms. Yeah, the "religion of atheism", that has a nice, logical sound to it. Well, in the interest of full disclosure, there is an "atheist church" ... http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_church.html But it ain't exactly the same beast. Arrrgh. The more I listen to this guy peddling his lecture, the more angry I become with him. “Teach the controversy!”, huh? I’m a software engineer, and what this guy reminds me of is Steve Ballmer on a podium, slapping his first in his palm and shouting, “Developers developers developers!!” Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

How dare he invoke “the intentions of the founding fathers” as justification for corrupting the practice of science on religious grounds. I wonder what part of the phrase “congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion” he doesn’t understand. His angle? He says that congress is endorsing the “religion” of materialistic atheism by disallowing “alternate theories” in science classrooms. Yeah, the “religion of atheism”, that has a nice, logical sound to it.

Well, in the interest of full disclosure, there is an “atheist church” …
http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_church.html
But it ain’t exactly the same beast.

]]>