Dunno as it ever occurred to me to cut any slack for food mythology... but I'll tell ya, that Dr Bronner's Peppermint Oil Soap, that stuff'll cure your hangover in the morning, no magic required. Just don't try to make any sense of the label.
Duh... could it be because some kinds of pseudoscience have more profound and far reaching detrimental effects on society at large?
What food, supplement or health product doesn't use shoddy science to fluff itself. All claim some sort of study that proves their superiority.
I think I know more right-leaning people that go to Whole Foods than I do left-leaning ones, seems odd that the article makes it sound like WF only serves liberals or something. It serves people with (possibly too much ) money. They do seem to have a great beer section, one of them nearby even fills growlers. The closest to a WF-like thing I go to is a Wegmans (mainly for beer and chocolate cake )
For anyone interested in the deal with Dr. Bronner, the world's #1 eradicator of ignorance did a nice article about him in the Straight Dope 26 years ago.
Parks, creationism, nutjobs, fVcked... Finally a thread that matched my search... http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-endures-flood-of-criticism-loses-tax-breaks/ In 2010, an evangelical Christian group called Answers in Genesis (AiG) began work on a proposed theme park called Ark Encounter, a massive Bible-themed attraction with plans to feature a 500-foot-long wooden replica of Noah’s Ark, a reconstruction of the Tower of Babel, and possibly even dinosaurs, among other exhibits. Although the park is explicitly religious, it enjoyed a deluge of support from the state of Kentucky when it was announced in 2010, with Governor Steve Beshear (D) holding a press conference to endorse the park as a job magnet and the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet initially pledging $43 million in tax breaks for the project’s $173 million construction plan. That amount was eventually reconfigured to $18 million for the project’s “first phase”, and government officials maintained that the park should be treated the same as any other large project in the state — so long as AiG promised not to pick and choose who they hire based on religion. So clearly Mr. Ham lived up to expectations...
When they want tax rebates they are a tourist site. When they want to restrict hiring they are a religious institution. Whichever, depends on the 'right' answer.
Oh look, another scientific attempt to divine (pun intended) the origin of life on Earth. To recreate the conditions thought to exist on Earth when life began, scientists used a giant laser to ignite chemical reactions that converted a substance found on the early Earth into the molecular building blocks of DNA, the blueprint for life. The findings not only offer support for theories of how life first formed, but could also aid in the search for signs of life elsewhere in the universe, the researchers said.
Yeah, but I'm sure the proper translation is asteroids, not stars. The ancients who put God's word on papyrus didn't know the difference and God allowed their error to confuse the heathen. You know, the unbelieving heathen dinosaurs were also laughing, until that day those damn rocks fell out of the sky and landed on earth and Christanosaurus Rex returned.
The literal 'word of God'. Translated, redacted, voted on by a committee, edited, re-translated, re-redacted, re-re translated, voted upon again, and again, and again...but still the literal 'word of God'.
one of the funniest kinds of statements i've ever come across is included in the referenced article. it is quoted below: it has been generally considered to be an established fact that Miller and Urey were completely wrong about the conditions "thought to be present". in addition, they isolated the "sludge" they collected so that it would not be destroyed by the oxygenated environment present. it seems to be just a little bit of a stretch, though i suppose it is possible, that the conditions that were created by asteroid bombardment were similar to a giant laser. now, on the other hand, God is just like a giant laser.
I guess I'm missing your point, or maybe you've missed the point of the statement. All this is saying, to me anyway, is that there is a history of trying to figure out what the conditions were like on the early Earth, and Urey-Miller was the first attempt. Perhaps I should not be surprised that's what you microfocused on, like God's laser, in this article about science's continuing efforts to actually figure the universe out. What's actually funny though, and what you have always completely missed in your crusade against science and reason, is that just because these weren't the conditions on the early Earth, doesn't mean they haven't been similar to the conditions on thousands of other worlds. And as we all know, the experiment produced amino acids. In other words, there are tons of different ways the building blocks of life might come to form. That's broadband radiation, Stilt, spread across a huge spectrum--the exact opposite of a laser.
i have no crusade against science and reason. don't insult my viewpoint if you don't understand it. i think we should reject bad conclusions where scientists have gone amiss. Urey-Miller was based on a flawed notion and any conclusions about how life may have originated ON EARTH must be rejected since that experiment cannot correlate positively w/ what is now known about Earth's atmosphere X bya. i don't know whether you are an advocate of Panspermia or whatever life-origin theory that may be held in various circles, but all of them are no more or less plausible ( assuming some degree of rationality ) than the notion that an Intelligent Designer created Life ( assuming that because the existence of an Intelligent Designer makes some intuitive sense, it isn't an irrational view. i say "intuitive sense" b/c it is normal for complex material things to be designed or created. ) how life may have developed on other worlds may be relevant to our world, or it may be completely irrelevant. the newest find on Mars, that there are signs of organic matter, may or may not have any correspondence to Earth. it is the tactic of a group of evolutionary biologist to ridicule anyone who does not subscribe to that theory because evolution is considered a scientific fact, despite a number of what i take to be completely reasonable questions that such scientists either refuse to acknowledge as germane or claim to be trivial. for example, there is a video of the "evolution" of the eye by the famous Richard Dawkins that purports to explain how the eye developed, but there is no reasonable explanation of why certain optical structures are as they exist, for example, the way that blood "nourishes" the retina, from behind. this kind of anomaly is passed off as a quirk of nature. and that doesn't even touch the surface. the process of sight itself is so complex that imagining that the anatomical structures and the physiological processes developed independently yet came together -- again by a quirk of nature -- is beyond the bounds of credibility. a totally undirected process cannot be expected to produce such results.
You must have had a bit too much of the grape. That's what we do here. Insults and misunderstandings. Buckle up!
The whole thing about the rift between science and religion is due to an ancient misunderstanding. God actually loved science and reason. The problem emerged due to a mistranslation of his words. When God put Adam and Even in Eden he told them, "Hey, you can eat from any tree you want, but if you eat the fruit of the tree of, you know, those bright poisoned berries, you're gonna die." Unfortunately, the translator didn't get the nuances of God's language right, and translated God's speech"the tree of, you know, those bright poisoned berries" into "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", and that's what went on the record. Since that time, religious people have always hated science and reason.
I'm not an advocate of anything. I'm perfectly comfortable stating I don't know. But I want to find out. Urey-Miller, while flawed, was an attempt to find out. Intelligent design is not an attempt to find out. It's an attempt to cram an ad hoc just-so story written by Bronze Age goat herders into the available data, which is why it fails miserably. When you have a test that could falsify intelligent design, let us know. Until then, it's not science, and is indeed a crusade against science and reason.