On the “Talibanesque”-ness of harassment policies »« CISPA goes to a super-quiet senate vote soon

“Every shred of social science research” bears out the Bible

According to Janet Porter of Faith2Action, anyway.

So, um, yeah. What do you define as social science research? What about the social sciences that say you can’t “repair” homosexuality? What about anthropology and archaeology, both of which support evolution as two of its pillars, when you believe that evolution is somehow diametrically opposed to your holy scriptures?

Fractally wrong.

Comments

  1. jamessweet says

    Jason, I think you are unaware of the overwhelming scientific consensus that mixed fibers in clothing are a leading cause of cancer.

    Oh wait, that’s not true?

  2. says

    Let’s put it this way — after you’ve shredded all the research, none of the shreds dispute the Bible. So she’s right, if you interpret her words the right way.

  3. Master of the Lurking says

    I have a social science degree (sociology).

    I don’t think I really need to bother, but…

    She’s wrong.

  4. says

    “What do you define as social science research?”

    I’m guessing Ms Porter might make extensive use of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy, the good friend of even many of the less whacky of today’s Christian theologians and apologists.

    (The no-true-Scotsman fallacy: a Scotsman hears of horrible crimes committed by an Englishman, and says, “No Scotsman would ever do such things!” The next day the headline in his morning paper tells of a Scotsman committing the same sorts of horrible crimes, and he says, “Well… No true Scotsman would ever do such things!”)

    If Ms Porter were confronted with social science research which contradicts what she’s saying, she could employ the no-true-Scotsman fallacy and claim that it isn’t legitimate social science research.

    Christians are getting better and better at deceiving themselves — of course they are, how else could they remain Christian?

    Have you ever heard of the “conflict thesis”? This is supposed to be the name for the idea that religion and science conflict with each other. (Ever heard of a name for the idea that water is wet? Yeah, me neither.) There are some Christian apologists running around loose today claiming that the “conflict thesis” was a product of Victorian scholarship, and that it has been refuted and no historians of science subscribe to it today. I imagine their proof must be something like the absence of the term “conflict thesis’ in the works of historians of science. (Look up “conflict thesis” on Wikipedia for a prime example of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. Google it for a breathtaking cornucopia of stubborn resistance to common sense.) People who “refute” the “conflict thesis” often also will try to tell you that Medieval Christianity created science. There’s some overlap with Presuppositionalists, to whose existence several FTB bloggers recently alerted me, thank you very much.

    The Stoopid is strong in these ones!

  5. says

    I have not heard of ‘Conflict thesis’, probably because it’s a boring term. They should have come up with a German word for it. Look at Schadenfreude, (taking joy at the misfortune of others), how freakin’ awesome is that word?

    Sure, it might be getting overused now but that’s because nothing in English has the same freude.

    Although I did find this in Wikipedia’s definition of Schadenfreude: Another phrase with a meaning similar to Schadenfreude is “morose delectation” (“delectatio morosa” in Latin), meaning “the habit of dwelling with enjoyment on evil thoughts”.

    Morose delectation > conflict thesis.

  6. Erin says

    @Steven Bollinger(#5)

    She states right around the 10-12 second mark that it’s the newspapers that support The Bible…and we all know how reliable those are. There could be other shreds of “social science research” that she’s thinking of but they’re probably only shreds because they’d be torn apart by real research like anthropology and archaeology.

    Regardless of what she says in the last 48 seconds of the clip, she has – in my opinion – discredited herself at the 1 second mark with her fifth word: “You know what I loves…” Call me old fashioned, but I prefer it when the people I listen to (or read, for that matter) actually get their verb conjugation right. At that point, she may as well have stuck a sign to her forehead that read, “I are not SMRT,” and we could have gone on ignoring her tripe.

  7. Uncle Glenny says

    She heard something from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a pastor who heard it from James Dobsom 40 years ago who heard it from Paul Cameron before he was totally discredited.

  8. Uncle Glenny says

    Hey, even the Big Guy loves barbeque

    So all that smiting and genocide was really about bbq style?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>