Monday, October 10, 2011

Our Amazing Scientists

[alleged perv]

Kimberly Lindsey, Supervisory Health Scientist, serves as the Deputy Director for the Laboratory Science Policy and Practice Program Office (LSPPPO) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Dr. Lindsey received her doctoral degree in immunology and molecular pathogenesis from Emory University and her bachelor’s degree in molecular biology from the University of Central Florida.

The scientist was arrested yesterday for sex acts involving herself, her boyfriend, a six year old boy and an animal.

Of course these are the same type of scientists whose belief in evolution we mere laymen must accept without question.


Jeff said...

And what exactly is this example supposed to prove?

jewish philosopher said...

Quite simply, the most popular argument for atheism is an argument from authority.

This argument states that if a vast majority of eminent, let's say Nobel prize winning, scientists, believe that a certain concept is true, then it is true beyond reasonable doubt and any rational person should be willing to literally bet his life, his afterlife, his family's lives, everything in this world and in any other worlds, on the truth of that concept. Therefore evolution must be accepted as a fact and the Bible rejected as a myth.

I think this article further undermines this argument, which is a poor argument in any case, by demonstrating a prominent biologist's lack of integrity.

In addition, certain Jewish skeptic bloggers would make a huge hoopla if a prominent orthodox rabbi were the subject of this arrest. May I ask, where are they now when it's a scientist? Why the double standard? Where is the Awareness Center or Failed Messiah?? 

Also, I'm not letting any scientists borrow my new Maltese puppy.

Jeff said...

"I think this article further undermines this argument, "

OK, so if I bring you a case of a physician who was convicted of fraud,

that undercuts the professional authority of the entire profession. Great.

Argument by authority is a great argument, by the way. You use it all the time, when making decision about things that you are unqualified to evaluate.

jewish philosopher said...

I wouldn't blindly trust a doctor who would recommend a suspicious sounding treatment for which he had a personal interest in promoting.

However that's how atheists trust evolutionists.

Michael said...

Wow, talk about completely flaming out.

Re: the argument from authority, an educated layperson can still infer design from organisms, without having to place full trust in scientists who believe in completely random evolution. A basic understanding of evolution reveals that it cannot account for the problem of abiogenesis--the emergence of the genetic code (DNA, RNA, proteins, all of which have complex, specified information). What your met with are all sorts of theories that amount to little more than hand-waving (the most popular of recent vintage being the RNA world theory); no one has ever witnessed the emergence of complex, specified information from completely random chemical elements (let alone the enormous degree of specified complexity seen in even the most rudimentary organisms), whereas the principle that "design implies a designer" is seen in operation on a daily basis in virtually all facets of human endeavor.
An honest and unbiased observer would assume that the "apparent" design in our simplest organisms is in fact reflective of genuine design, until proven otherwise. The logic of leaping to the inherently weaker hypothesis of "design without a designer" in the case of abiogenesis testifies to the dishonesty of those scientists who subscribe to this view. As such their integrity is very much an issue of public concern, particularly in regards to an issue that touches upon perhaps the most important question a human being can answer for himself.

Joseph said...

1. You have no proof that she's an atheist. If you state that her actions prove it, you only make yourself look foolish.
2. One could argue equally well that you accept the beliefs of Rabbis who are alleged to be molesters or pimps like Lebovitz or Tropper.

jewish philosopher said...

I think the odds are far against her being a creationist.

I've never argued "OK, the Torah doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but do you think you know better than all the great rabbis who do believe in it? If you've got such iron clad arguments against Judaism, then why haven't all the world's greatest Talmudic scholars already realized that?! Why don't you just write to them and tell them?"

However atheists constantly use that line of reasoning to support evolution. How do we know how many "great scientists" are complete nuts, who might preach anything if it's to their benefit, besides having sex with dogs, cats, little kids, who knows what?

Alex said...

"2. One could argue equally well that you accept the beliefs of Rabbis who are alleged to be molesters or pimps like Lebovitz or Tropper."

A million people can tell JP that "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," but I don't think it would register.

jewish philosopher said...

Look at it this way. The jewish skeptic blogs went crazy over Tropper and Lebovitz, although, incidentally, Tropper broke no law and Lebovitz is a businessman, not a great pillar of Jewish theology.

I think I'm allowed to toss a couple of stones back at their very fragile glass house. I'm sure no Jewish skeptic blog will bother mentioning this story.

Alex said...

"I'm sure no Jewish skeptic blog will bother mentioning this story."

This statement can be seen as a praise of your blog, or a criticism of it.

"I think I'm allowed to toss a couple of stones "

Allowed? Sure! Wise to? Forget it!!

jewish philosopher said...

Why exactly is every scandal involving a "rabbi" (generally actually an orthodox elementary school teacher or businessman, not a pulpit rabbi) a huge blow to orthodox Judaism, while scandals involving scientists don't reflect badly on atheism? Remember atheism is supposedly based on science.

Richard Dawkins has gone as far as to say "I don't understand why so many people who are sophisticated in science go on believing in God."

I don't understand why sophisticated people go on believing in science.

Alex said...

"Why exactly is every scandal involving a "rabbi" ... a huge blow to orthodox Judaism...?"

I never said it was. All I'm saying is that when you throw stones at "scientists" or "atheists", they're just gonna throw stones back. Is that something you want?

jewish philosopher said...

The enemies of the rabbis have kept up a constant drumbeat of slander for thousands of years.

Jesus is quoted as saying (Matthew 23:27) “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.”

Well, that can work both ways.

Alex said...

Yes, it CAN work both ways. But every time you write negatively about an atheist, you're in fact _encouraging_ your readers to write something negatively about an Orthodox Jew or rabbi. You do khap that, right?

Also, what Jesus said about Jewish leaders is as harsh as what Jeremiah said. It's one of the few missionary arguments in which they actually have a point.

David Evans said...

"However that's how atheists trust evolutionists."

How can you claim to know that? For the record, I am an atheist and I accept evolution because I have read the evidence and followed new discoveries thoroughly over many years. I feel insulted by your comment. It is religion, not science, where I see people constantly arguing from authority instead of looking at evidence.

jewish philosopher said...

"How can you claim to know that?"

From many years of debating with atheist online.

"It is religion, not science, where I see people constantly arguing from authority instead of looking at evidence."

Not me.

And atheism is a religion.

Anonymous said...

Jesus's criticism was against hypocrisy, not against rabbis or scribes.

His theology was pretty much similar as that of the Pharisees, and he strongly rejected Sadduceanism.

What he could not stand was the hypocrisy and hypocrite lifestyle of the religious leaders. The religious leaders did not live like they taught. Rather it was more with them like "do as I say, don't do as I do". Jeremiah already pointed that 600 years earlier.

Hypocrisy has always been the vice of religious leaders, regardless of any religion.