1. How do know that? You're talking about a broad range of 'individuals' affected differently. There may be some who agree with Watson for all we know, and are just going with the flow. I'm sure there are also those who place more emphasis on the 'offense' than evidence.1. <quoted text>
I will repeat what I previously wrote
Certainly the magnitude of the response by the scientific community was affected by the socially and politically offensive nature of the comments but the lack of scientific evidence was the determining factor in the unanimity of the rejection of them.
2. I think Dr. Watsons comments were certainly racist in character. I dont know Dr. Watson personally and I cant judge him a racist or not a racist simply on the basis of those comments. I dont know what his background is and he may well have been raised in a racist environment which still affects his thinking to this day. He obviously wasnt thinking too clearly when he made those statements.
He was treated exactly as he should have been for making unsupported very offensive comments.
3. <quoted text>
Dawkins is a scientist (PhD evolutionary biologist) which makes him eminently qualified to comment on evolution. You dont have to be a theologian or be qualified in any way to hold the personal opinion that the Bible is just plain weird.
4. weird (adj)- odd: strange or unusual, supernatural The Bible is weird.
Witches and demons exist only in human imagination.
5. The God that I consider to be a possibility wouldnt be so unintelligent as to expect rational thinking people to believe in a talking snake.
6. <quoted text>
What does any of that have to with your comment that people who referred to Dr. Watsons comments as hypotheses would need personal protection? Your comment was humorous.
because it was extremely offensive and unsupported.
The dichotomy and contradiction here between 'offense' and 'evidence' is painfully obvious.
2. In the U.S., the Federation of American Scientists said it was outraged that Watson "chose to use his unique stature to promote personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science."
Again, a contradiction. You claim you don't know that he is racist, yet fully support those who apparently do, or claim to. And certainly the quote I provided does not suggest lack of evidence having precedence over offense. If anything, the opposite. It should be understood, these counter quotations are hand selected to appease to different audiences with different levels of emotion on the issue. The demands of an apology were widespread, and the scientific community needed to appease to those the most offended by using terms like 'racist', and lesser suggestions to that effect like "lacking evidence",'unscientific', etc., for those not quite as emotionally effected.
3. I wasn't talking about evolution. And yes, he has a right to any opinion he wants on the Bible. It doesn't mean he's qualified to make statements he knows nothing about. And again,'weird' does not equal 'untrue'. I had a 'weird' thing happen to me the other day. And 'really' happened. It wasn't my imagination.
4. Dan Barker's comments are akin to false advertising. If someone never read the Bible before hearing his description, they would think the Bible had witches flying on brooms, etc. The Bible addresses the fact that there were witches just like there are today. Do you want to tell a Wiccan witch that she doesn't exist? And how do you know that demons are just part of man's imagination?
5. You mean a god made in 'your' personal image of how a god 'should' be.
Again, could a creator of the universe cause a snake or donkey to speak if He so chose to?
6. All I'm suggesting is that they chose to remain anonymous for personal protection (threats of physical harm, harassment, etc.).
7. And what do you think would happen if it was supported?