Posted 04 November 2008 - 02:42 PM
Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:52 PM
Oh, oh, I'm no biologist but I think that's not how evolution works.
What they want to be true with this article?
It wants to be true that people's behavior can be affected by the mere belief of a God, so the heavily atheist readership can justifies to themselves: "oh there's a scientific reason those nuts accept unskeptical costumes after all".
Posted 24 October 2012 - 05:49 PM
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:53 PM
Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:01 AM
Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:33 AM
On an different note, I've been meaning to ask, who around here has ever read The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers?
Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:37 AM
Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:59 AM
Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:44 AM
Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:32 PM
Yeah, that line stood out to me, too. Francis Collins makes a similar point in The Language of God.
Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:36 PM
: That's a snappy line, but here's the money quote: "If you fight science, you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was."
As I mentioned at Facebook (on Tyler's wall, I think?), all I could think after hearing that quote was to wonder how many positions Pat *does* take could be challenged with similar "you're going to lose your children" reasoning.
Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:41 PM
Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:55 PM
: I really don't care if God used evolution to create.
That should be "uses", present tense.
Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:20 PM
Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:23 PM
Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:35 PM
Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:40 PM
The other problem is that many ID apologists posit ID and evolution as an either/or proposition, which is problematic to the extreme. Richard Dawkins is fond of saying that evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I would add that an acceptance of the overwhelming evidence for the reality of evolution is necessary to be an intellectually honest theist.
I'd highly recommend the Chapman and Miller books, if this subject interests you. Chapman's book is the more enjoyable read, as he's got a playful sense of humor and writes for a general audience. Miller's book is more demanding, but as a bio major and regular reader of medical/scientific literature, I appreciated his intellectual rigor and scientific detail.
Edited by Andrew, 02 December 2012 - 11:08 AM.