No, it’s not another archaeo-journalism piece of tripe. The WP ran an article on “End Times Theology in the Age of Obama” in which my post debunking the (in)famous “Did Jesus give us the name of the antichrist” viral video is mentioned.
No, it’s not another archaeo-journalism piece of tripe. The WP ran an article on “End Times Theology in the Age of Obama” in which my post debunking the (in)famous “Did Jesus give us the name of the antichrist” viral video is mentioned.
My comment oin the Washington Post:
Why not get it over with and change the name of the USA to the United CHRISTIAN States of America. What with these Bible Thumping whackos and the Fundamentalist “Young Earth” Creationist Evangelicals, the name change might as well happen. I read a lot about the Poisoning of Minds in Texas and other Bible Belt States, especially in the schools where ID must be taught alongside Evolution, or preferabally without Evolution.
The “Holy” Bible is the worst book of fiction ever written. It should be classified Horror/Fiction, not suitable for under 18. I have seen the effects on children in Bibled Camps in the movie “Jesus Camp”. Does any parent think their kids should be put through that trauma? They should be charged under the Law with Child Abuse.
Wake up to youselves, Americans, Your country is becoming a 3rd. World Country.
Robert Tobin, Atheist
You have a pretty fundamentalistic view of the Bible yourself. (And you don’t sound very acquainted with alternative views of creation, like intelligent design – and spare me the “ID isn’t science” nonsense — there are hundreds of PhD in the hard sciences who say it is, some of whom I know personally from my grad school days who were full professors). Your logic is atrocious as well (that a minority of people that believe X do Y means other people who don’t do Y should be banned from believing X). Sounds like fascism to me. What idiot hurt you in the name of the Bible? (That’s usually where this sort of venom comes from).
You also seem to have forgotten that it was the deeply religious (most Christian, but not all) founders who refused to make the US a nation under one religion. They were pluralists — which you don’t seem to like.
Many people in America (like Robert) have lost the ability to reason, therefore every issue is dealt with emotionally.
Simply navigate around them.
MSH
As a palaeanthropologist, I have serious problems with calling ID a science for a number of reasons: chief amongst them the fact that it seems to me to require one to make a subjective assumption prior to formulating an hypothesis; namely assuming what something designed by a creator would look like; which means resorting to our own human notions of design.
Of course we do this to an extent from an evolutionary perspective but I would argue we know what evolved structures look like as they can be modelled in algorithms and such like.
I’m not trying to be closed minded here, just a little confused as to the basis for ID as a science.
what confuses me is how so many people who have graduated from top-notch research universities are so “confused” about the nature of science – why is they can’t see intelligent design isn’t science? Seems incongruent. Maybe (just maybe) the problem is in definitions and caricatures.
Hi Mike, I’ll just like to take Mr. Tobin’s comment as an example of how people are drawn towards the extremes. As they are not able to cope with the stress and suffering of modern living, they develop this apathy towards some obsolete catholic paradigms that are deeply rooted in western culture. This is why Bart D. Ehrman’s theory is so well received by so many desperate people that cannot find an answer for “why God makes good people suffer”, therefore they choose to “hate” God and blame him for their deception.
I believe that the answer might be hidden somewhere in ancient scriptures, and brilliant open minded scholars such as yourself can help bring the truth to light. So I think it’s important that you empathize with atheist and sceptics, and offer them some words of guidance inviting them to research for themselves, as they are also in need of answers that make sense to what is really happening around us.
In my humble opinion, fundamentalism and atheism are both dead ends. Truth, usually lies somewhere between the extremes.
‘why is they can’t see intelligent design isn’t science?’
Which is perhaps because when we ask, no one ever seems to have a clear answer. There is a lot of conflicting stories about exactly how one goes about forming testable assumptions about intelligent design. I asked you because you are clearly someone who is well educated enough to give me a good academic perspective, which I have never had access to.
I freely admit to not being the most educated when it comes to the philosophy of science but from the limited amount I know about ID, I can see problems one would come up against, such as the formulation of hypotheses independent of anthropocentric assumptions of what ‘design’ looks like.
Of course, one could reject an evolutionary model on the basis, say, of the oft cited ‘Precambrian rabbit’ but in this case there is no need to be identified as engaging in ID science or evolutionary science, one would just engaged in science.
Moreover even in this instance one would still only left with a ‘god in the gaps’ situation, citing intelligent design takes us back to the problem with assuming what design looks like.
So if my problem is with definition and caricature, I apologise and am willing to be set straight.
You need to ask someone in the hard sciences. It would do little good for me to defend ID as I’m not in the hard sciences. I can do it philosophically and logically, but my experience is that people in the hard sciences only listen to people in the hard sciences.
Well I wont pursue the matter further here as I appreciate I am well off topic! Sorry.
Oh man, do not ruin all of our fantasies. Let us believe some extraordinary stuff from ancient world. The world is just boring. If you continue like that, there will be no 2012, no aliens, no Atlantis(by the way, where is the Atlantis page?). Aliens must be there. They will come and save us from banality. Respect!
Richard D Says:
Of course we do this to an extent from an evolutionary perspective but I would argue we know what evolved structures look like as they can be modelled in algorithms and such like.
This is an ironic statement because to develop an evolutionary algorithm requires an intelligent person to design it with rules, functions and goals.
Crafting rules and functions that may force a (defined) desirable result while rejecting (defined) undesirable results based on parameters that further define resources is an excellent proof of the ID concept.
yep – good illustration
Pons Asinorm,
You beat me to it 🙂 but an excellent observation.
My personal opinion is that pretty much everything in the field of origins (both of the universe, and of life) is not science in the modern sense of the word, but rather philosophy.
Its just that one particular group dresses their philosophy up in the language of science and tries, thus, to claim an intellectual authority and superiority.
Of course, I tend to think that the ‘scientific’ worldview as a whole is more philosophy than anything else. Real applied science is basically used to market a completely philosophical worldview.
Interestingly, the argument could be made that this is exactly what Francis Bacon was discussing/warning against in the New Atlantis.