What is science for? - audio lecture by Tom Mcleish (available online at the Faraday Institute)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Until 1993 there was no official government [England] reason given for the financing of science.' A paper was then given that offered a coupe reasons; 1. wealth creation; 2. betterment of the quality of life.
2. If I heard him correctly he said (unbelievably) 'I don't see that there are any limits on what science can engage in...'
- If people like this have their way the human world will surely be destroyed... if not the whole world. This is surely the desire to be as god. One is reminded of the offer the serpent gave to Eve "thous shalt be as gods.'' McLeish calls this idolatry 'a celebration of no limits.' (That's as anti-biblical as one could get... despite all his previous pious talk. Nowhere in the bible is there even a hint that men can live as if there were no limits on their behavior. And let's not forget; that in practicality this means no limits on what the ruling elite can do.... ie. in spite of the populace, and TO the populace.) How this can pretend to be Christianity? I have no idea. When God says ''ye shall have no other gods....'' this clearly includes man himself. The idea there should (should? where does the should come from?) be no limits on what scientists can concoct is the epitome of evil.
- so I ask; can I do whatever I want? can anyone whose not a 'scientist' do whatever they want? can they force taxpayers to finance it? So the question is this; if most people can't do what they want, why can people called scientists? aren't they just human like the rest of us? don't they have the same foibles? and why should we defend their right to do as they please, if we don't have similar rights?
3. asked about genetic engineering, he says 'it's not obvious (oh? says who) we should not re-engineer ourselves.' Really? If we were made by god (a perfectly wise god, who controls all things) how can we (in our puny so called wisdom... which is no doubt delusion) improve on this? how do we know what god thinks of it? how do we know the results of our playing around? etc.)
4. He goes on to play the child's game of claiming government (i.e. socialism) research is PURE while private research is EVIL. (You wonder if these people have ever read a single, solitary book on the ussr. How can they be so naive? how is it possible? communism murdered 200 million people in the last century... but these academic clowns seem not to have noticed it? In their minds (which they deny having :=) the collectivist power state is all good... the fount of purity and blessing... that has no downside. They argue like 3 year olds. All the blood of the martyrs of communism cries out against them but they weld covers to their ears... and refuse to hear. The State is their god; the fount of all blessings. (And yet they pretend to be christians.)
5. He wants to contrast science 'which should be (should be?) an open ended questioning of all things...'
- Really? says who? i.e. that's not a scientific statement... it's a faith claim. We might ask, based on what? You see (like most professors on tenure; a non-scientific matter by the way) he wants to deny the validity of absolute morals... but at the same time he depends on them entirely. eg. why should people be forced to pay his salary? defend his right to do things no one else can do? etc etc.? why shouldn't people be allowed to kill him if he defends them? etc. On the one hand he denies moral absolutes, but on the other hand depends on them utterly. (He apparently doesn't have the wit to comprehend this.) He can question all things; but no one can question him! this is clearly a joke. He can steal money from people who oppose him; but no one can do the same to him. He can have his projects financed; but his opponents cannot. He pretends to know absolute truth; but no one else can make the same claim. It's all a great joke.
6. "You don't need to be a Christian to be a good scientist,' he tells us. Well if he means you don't have to be a c. to be able to accurately observe the creation I would agree. But this is Much too simplistic. A materialist can Never understand the universe, or man correctly. Never.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Until 1993 there was no official government [England] reason given for the financing of science.' A paper was then given that offered a coupe reasons; 1. wealth creation; 2. betterment of the quality of life.
2. If I heard him correctly he said (unbelievably) 'I don't see that there are any limits on what science can engage in...'
- If people like this have their way the human world will surely be destroyed... if not the whole world. This is surely the desire to be as god. One is reminded of the offer the serpent gave to Eve "thous shalt be as gods.'' McLeish calls this idolatry 'a celebration of no limits.' (That's as anti-biblical as one could get... despite all his previous pious talk. Nowhere in the bible is there even a hint that men can live as if there were no limits on their behavior. And let's not forget; that in practicality this means no limits on what the ruling elite can do.... ie. in spite of the populace, and TO the populace.) How this can pretend to be Christianity? I have no idea. When God says ''ye shall have no other gods....'' this clearly includes man himself. The idea there should (should? where does the should come from?) be no limits on what scientists can concoct is the epitome of evil.
- so I ask; can I do whatever I want? can anyone whose not a 'scientist' do whatever they want? can they force taxpayers to finance it? So the question is this; if most people can't do what they want, why can people called scientists? aren't they just human like the rest of us? don't they have the same foibles? and why should we defend their right to do as they please, if we don't have similar rights?
3. asked about genetic engineering, he says 'it's not obvious (oh? says who) we should not re-engineer ourselves.' Really? If we were made by god (a perfectly wise god, who controls all things) how can we (in our puny so called wisdom... which is no doubt delusion) improve on this? how do we know what god thinks of it? how do we know the results of our playing around? etc.)
4. He goes on to play the child's game of claiming government (i.e. socialism) research is PURE while private research is EVIL. (You wonder if these people have ever read a single, solitary book on the ussr. How can they be so naive? how is it possible? communism murdered 200 million people in the last century... but these academic clowns seem not to have noticed it? In their minds (which they deny having :=) the collectivist power state is all good... the fount of purity and blessing... that has no downside. They argue like 3 year olds. All the blood of the martyrs of communism cries out against them but they weld covers to their ears... and refuse to hear. The State is their god; the fount of all blessings. (And yet they pretend to be christians.)
5. He wants to contrast science 'which should be (should be?) an open ended questioning of all things...'
- Really? says who? i.e. that's not a scientific statement... it's a faith claim. We might ask, based on what? You see (like most professors on tenure; a non-scientific matter by the way) he wants to deny the validity of absolute morals... but at the same time he depends on them entirely. eg. why should people be forced to pay his salary? defend his right to do things no one else can do? etc etc.? why shouldn't people be allowed to kill him if he defends them? etc. On the one hand he denies moral absolutes, but on the other hand depends on them utterly. (He apparently doesn't have the wit to comprehend this.) He can question all things; but no one can question him! this is clearly a joke. He can steal money from people who oppose him; but no one can do the same to him. He can have his projects financed; but his opponents cannot. He pretends to know absolute truth; but no one else can make the same claim. It's all a great joke.
6. "You don't need to be a Christian to be a good scientist,' he tells us. Well if he means you don't have to be a c. to be able to accurately observe the creation I would agree. But this is Much too simplistic. A materialist can Never understand the universe, or man correctly. Never.
posted by M. Johnson at 3:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home