Recently, Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, a JW working in a leading position at the Gene-Science-Department at the Max-Planck-Institute, has been banned from the Institute's WebSite for spreading his view about Evolution. He promotes the so called "Intelligents Design".
Max-Planck-Institute calles this Creationism in disguise. They said they ridiculed themselves by letting him keep on. Despite he had the support of his boss, Loennig's WebSite is now gone and subject to investigation.
I am not competent in discussing the topic on this level but I prefer a dialogue to a ban. It seems the Max-Planck-Institute has run short on arguments.
You find Loennig private WebSite here:
http://www.we-loennig.de/
You find a discussion of the ban (in German) here:
http://www.vdbiol.de/debatten/evolution/evolution.html
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW 229 Replies latest jw friends
-
GermanXJW
-
rocketman
I hope to check out those sites. I'm not in favor of people being "banned" for sharing a viewpoint. Looks like this jw scientist (shouldn't that be an oxymoron?) is getting a taste of jw medicine, snice they don't allow people ti air contrary views either.
-
rem
Well, I only read english, but I think I can understand a scientist being banned from a website for espousing 'intelligent design'. It would be similar to banning someone for espousing flat-earthism or Lamarksim. There is really no need to discuss such non-scientific theories. Perhaps they are worried that his contributions will tarnish their reputation? Intelligent design is a 'god of the gaps' theory - which means it is not a scientific theory. Thus, it has no place on a science institution's website. If a falsifiable scientific theory of 'intelligent design' could be developed, then it might be worth discussing.
rem
-
Valis
JW scientist...*LOL* wrap your head around that paradox! *LOL* Just another example of psuedo sceintists trying to horn in w/their poor attempts to validate biblical nonsense and give themselves scientific validity..
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
-
GermanXJW
You may laugh about the paradoxon but Dr. Loennig is a JW and he is head of the Genetic Department of the Max-Planck-Institut.
-
Ed
Just shows how similar science and religion are in some ways. This is what "we" believe, and you must subscribe to all elements of what "we" believe, otherwise you are not one of "us" and will be shunned/ridiculed.
-
logansrun
Ed,
The difference is that "science" relies on objective evidence for promotion of views, whereas religion promotes blind belief. Anyone who could take creationism seriously cannot practice high level science, such as genetic research. It would be like hiring someone who doesn't believe the Holocaust ever happened to be in charge of the Holocaust Memorial Museum. That's how ridiculous it would be.
Bradley
-
RunningMan
There is a difference between shunning someone, and distancing yourself from their crackpot ideas. I don't imagine that this university has forbidden anyone from talking to him. They simply don't want his goofball ideas ruining their reputation.
If a professor goes of the deep end and starts advocating (pick a pseudo science - pyramidology, phrenology, etc), I would fully expect the institution to extricate their name from his.
-
Ed
The difference is that "science" relies on objective evidence for promotion of views, whereas religion promotes blind belief.
But once again you get an elite group of people deciding how that data must be interpreted. You have some "outlandish" explanation of how these numbers could mean something other than our version? No diploma for you!!
Tell me how that sort of mind-set helps anyone in the quest for knowledge any more than the threat of excommunication helps people discern the Bible's message more clearly.
-
logansrun
Ed,
Scientists don't exactly "decide" how data is to be interpreted; much more is involved. Science has progressively evolved over hundreds of years; it's a system that is intense and rigerous, though not perfect. Certain axioms such as replication, mathematical consistency and Occam's razor are involved. To compare the rigors of science and logic to theology is like comparing apples and bulldozers.
To press this point further: scientists are always on the hunt for a "great breakthrough", something that will be instrumental in the scientific world. But, this breakthrough would have to be in keeping with the standards that have been working for hundreds of years. Creationism is not science, it's theology. Therefore, it has no place in the scientific world. By the way, are you a creationist?
Bradley