Jan 052006
 

Author : Benjii
The case for a creator is a book that makes a cogent case for intelligent design. It
puts forth evidence from disparate fields such as biochemistry, biology, physics, cosmology, cognitive science and the like. Although, the book takes a religious stance, it does focus on a lot of science, especially with respect to ID. For ID purposes, this essay will discuss the science behind design as put forth by the book, not the religious aspects. Continue reading »

Jan 042006
 

Thanks to Mike at TT for alerting me to this PZ diatribe.

One thing you have to give PZ credit for, unlike edarrell and Ken Miller, is that he is honest about Darwinism. He is a zealot for his Atheism. He is a rabid Darwinist. I think he would be proud that such terms are use to describe him.

The question you have to ask is that when you have someone who is so fervently religious can he at all be objective? Science is an objective pursuit for knowledge. When PZ is talking about science, he is really talking about a perversion of science. He is sacrificing the objective truth at the altar of Darwinism. The man is on a crusade to persecute all those who would dare to question his god. His god of atheistic Darwinism is the absolute truth and all who questions it should be destroyed. He is the atheistic prophet and the angel of death. No one will come to science except through PZ.

we’re even pleased to point out to the creationists that many of our leading lights have been and are religious (Dobzhansky, Ayala, Miller, Collins: it isn’t at all difficult to find people who can do both good science and follow a religion in their private life). It is self-evident that scientists are not necessarily derisive of religion, and also that science as an abstract concept can’t be derisive at all. However, I do think that the processes of science are antithetical to the processes of religion -personal revelation and dogma are not accepted forms of evidence in the sciences- and that people can encompass both clashing ideas is nothing but a testimony to the flexibility of the human mind, which has no problem partitioning and embracing many contradictions.

First thing to notice is that PZ praise people like Miller and Collins as leading light of his religion because… Yes that’s right they are not creationists. He then confirms that his religious processes of science are antithetical to other religions. Finally, he explain why people like Miller and Collins are “useful idiots” because they can incorporate the contradicting idea of God into the reality of the Darwinian religion. PZ’s strategy is to first eliminate the Christians then the “useful idiots”.

I really think we (not me, of course, but the general “we” of all of us ladies and gentlemen fighting creationism) go too far in trying to present science as compatible and even friendly to religion. It’s not.

The whole philosophy of critical thinking and demanding reproducible evidence arms its proponents with a wicked sharp knife that is all too easily applied to religious beliefs, which rely entirely on credulity.

This is laughable coming from a person whose belief is based entirely on irreproducible fairy tales. đŸ˜€

The religious know that a well-educated populace with a good background in science would mean church attendance would fade away, especially for the more stridently evangelical/fundamentalist (AKA “insane”) sects.

I was about to say the same for PZ, the stridently evangelical atheist (AKA “insane”) sects. This is the reason why the fundamentalists prohibit the teaching of the problems of evolution in schools, right PZ?

We are being disingenuous when we claim science is compatible with religion. It’s compatible with a kind of thoughtful religion that consciously sets itself aside as dealing solely with a metaphysical domain, not the world; it encourages the apostasy of deism and agnosticism, and can easily lead people into the path of atheism.

This is so funny. Miller, Collins, are you listening to this? Your religious belief is only compatible to science if it leads you into the “TRUE” path of atheism. LOL!

It’s a strength. Creationists hate the guy because he doesn’t just stand against one ludicrous symptom of their belief system, he goes straight to the root with scathing rhetoric against the whole monumental pile of rickety confabulations. Look at how they react to him: …

Now, really, how can you but admire someone who gets such press from such execrable sources?

When creationists carp at the uncompromising atheism of people like Dawkins, let’s not pander to them and thereby validate their complaints by offering up some more palatable Christian proxy, but instead stand up for them. Yes, he’s a forthright atheist… and so was John Maynard Smith and Ernst Mayr and Francis Crick and many, many others. We like them. Have you got a problem with that?

LOL! You’ve got to love the guy. He has such a way with words. đŸ˜€

OOPS, I am sorry PZ I didn’t mean to say love; I meant we hate you.