Re: [asa] Ottawa Citizen: The Skeptics Are Vindicated

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Thu Nov 26 2009 - 11:37:45 EST


It's hard to know where to begin. But what the hell, I'll give it a shot.

First, what you quote are not my words. They are Murray Hogg's words. Your
quoting does not make that clear.

Second, if you disagree that scientists "spend most of their time" regarding
each other with skepticism, questioning each other's motives, and
disagreeing with each other's findings.. again, you apparently have an
argument with Murray.

Third, since you've apparently got me in your sights, I'd love to know -
what are the "outrageous conclusions" I'm drawing from these emails? That
they expose unprofessional, ethically questionable behavior among the
scientists involved? And really, how in the world would you know anyway -
dealing in these emails' contents is theft and felonious behavior, remember.

Fourth, do you happen to see the humor in quoting the catechism, and drawing
the lesson from it that you do, given the habits of your posts and your
sources of choice? Really, do you not see the tangle you get in with this
very post?

Fifth, and finally - I asked you before about the use, quoting and
reproduction of the "Wedge Document". You wrote, if I recall right, that its
use was on par with the use of these emails (the quoting and distribution of
which you regard as trafficking in stolen goods, theft, and felonious

Again I ask: Given that the NCSE to this day hosts the Wedge Document on
their website, and makes ample reference to and use of it, does this mean
the NCSE is a pack of, in essence, thieves and felons? Or is it merely that
they now and then do felonious or unethical things... but such things really
don't matter all that much anyway?

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving to all.

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Rich Blinne <> wrote:

> On Nov 25, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Schwarzwald wrote:
> Sure peer-review is often inadequate, sure consensus science is
> questionable, sure scientists get it wrong (more often than they get it
> right, in fact) - but do you really think that scientists themselves are
> ignorant of this? You say we should regard them with skepticism,* question
> their motive**s*, and disagree with their findings - but what, pray tell,
> do you think scientists spend most of their time doing to one another?
> Westminster Larger Catechism
> Question 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
> Answer: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing
> the truth, and the good name of our neighbors ... *misconstructing
> intentions* [orig. lang. imputing motives] .. *raising false rumors,
> receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just
> defens*e
> Iain, you were being very patient to see if there was anything was innocent
> about the e-mails. Thank you. Questioning motives is just plain wrong. I
> live in both the scientific and Christian communities and it is a sad
> commentary that secular scientists far more rarely question other people's
> motives than Christians do. I do acknowledge that secular scientists do
> question Christians' motives but it's largely because of guilt by
> association by assuming that all Christians in the sciences act like the
> people who are drawing outrageous conclusions from the stolen e-mails. This
> is the reason why we are called "liars for Jesus".
> There are far too many ASA members who are both good Christians and
> scientists who are unnecessarily getting tarred by this kind of crap. The
> felicity all around of questioning motives is one of the reasons Christians
> in the sciences won't admit they're Christians in a scientific setting and
> (the more common) admit they're mainstream scientists in a church setting.
> There is literally no sanctuary.
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 26 11:38:12 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 26 2009 - 11:38:12 EST