"...Please explain?" - stem In the current context, I meant that a 'scientific experiment' with a predetermined goal for a result can quite often produce said given goal. This is done all of the time. This includes repeating an experiment over and over until the desired result is produced. Examples include reaching FDA standards, etc.
On Oct 4, 3:22 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Orn. said: > > "Of course, anything can be 'proven' when it is what is being looked > for." > > Please explain? > > stemcell > > On Oct 4, 2:27 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > My thoughts? Well, the first one that comes to mind is the clear adage > > that you can tell the result of a study by who funds it. In this case, > > a Theological University, Baylor. (The article is not the study > > itself.) > > > I've thought long and hard about going through the article line by > > line and pointing out how it abuses clarity of thought and in many > > cases does so in very subtle ways. Perhaps one day. > > > For now, here is the 2005 > > survey.http://www.isreligion.org/research/surveysofreligion/isr_wave12005_su... > > > and here is the late 2007 survey upon which the current news stories > > and articles are discussing. > > >http://www.isreligion.org/research/surveysofreligion/isr_wave22007_su... > > > Simple example of questions include question 12: > > > By your best guess, how would your current place of > > worship feel about each of the following? (Please mark > > only one box for each item a-i.) > > Forbids > > �� > > Strongly > > discourages > > �� > > Somewhat > > discourages > > �� > > Encourages > > �� > > Isn't > > concerned > > �� > > Don't > > know > > �� > > a. > > Pornography > > ...........................................................................--...... > > b. > > Gambling > > ...........................................................................--............ > > c. Wearing revealing > > clothing ......................................................... > > d. Premarital > > sex > > ...........................................................................--.... > > e. Living together before > > marriage ................................................ > > f. Use of > > contraception > > .................................................................... > > g. > > Abortion > > ...........................................................................--............. > > h. Homosexual > > behavior ................................................................. > > i. Displays of > > wealth.....................................................................--... > > > Of course, anything can be 'proven' when it is what is being looked > > for. > > > About their 2005 study, the University says on their website the > > following: > > > "Utilizing a mixed-mode sampling design (telephone and self- > > administered mailed surveys), the Baylor Religion Survey is a > > nationally representative survey of 1,721 respondents and is merely > > the first wave of a rich and rewarding new era of religious survey > > research. Additional waves of the Baylor Religion Survey, with > > rotating topical modules, will take place every other year." > > > Elsewhere on their site is this: > > > "WASHINGTON, D.C. - American religion is remarkably stable and quite > > surprising in its diverse beliefs, practices and realities, according > > to the latest findings from the Baylor Religion Survey, one of the > > most extensive surveys ever conducted on American religious > > attitudes." > > > A cursory analysis shows that in this first paragraph of their own > > press release put out by their marketing department, religion that is > > 'remarkably stable' also is diverse in beliefs, practices and > > realities. A truly remarkable conclusion! > > > OK, enough about what caused Mollie to write her article. Within her > > article, her personal bias and belief is clear to those who wish to > > look. ('...have eyes to see...') > > > Overall, to attempt to equate dogma and blind belief with being more > > rational than exploring all areas of thought is itself so blind and > > conservative as to negate any such study. > > > On Oct 4, 10:19 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What do you think of this recent column in the Wall Street Journal by > > > Mollie Ziegler Hemingway? She argues that traditional religious > > > beliefs protect people against pseudoscience and superstition, and > > > that wide-spread atheism will cause society to become even more > > > irrational. > > > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html?mod=googlenew... > > > > Aaron- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
