Jul 012006
    Posted by: David Harmon
    Do you think that science sometimes erodes those non-rational, non-objective human relationships that are, I suppose from your description, also not part of the scientific worldview?

Posted by: PZ Myers
No, not usually, because they generally do not contradict science, and are instead apart from it. Similarly, people can adopt some ethical philosophy like Buddhism or Taoism, or that Deism that was popular in the early days of the Enlightenment, fairly easily — that kind of stuff coexists independently of science.
The problem lies in beliefs that demand you accept the existence of invisible immortal superbeings that nonetheless manage to impregnant young women, for instance. That should make a mind used to thinking scientifically sputter and choke and seize up…so you have to really maintain a dichotomous way of thinking.

PZ Myers continues to show his ignorance and his inability to form a coherent and consistent thought process. In the same breath that he criticizes the beliefs in miracles and “immortal superbeings”, he accepts Buddhism, Taoism and Deism as not contradictory to science?

How much more ignorant of religion and science can you get? I would like to see Myers reconcile the conflict between the reincarnation of Buddhism, or the casting of spells and incantations of Taoism with the scientific methods. Even Deism accepts that there is a super being or intelligence inherent in nature that was or is involve at some point in the creation or workings of the universe. Is Myers now acquiescing Intelligent Design?

The problem with atheists is they are incapable of reconciling the reality of the intangibility of existence with their dogmatic worship of materialistic naturalism. This kind of self-contradicting logic from Myers is enough to cause any scientific mind to convulse in epileptic seizure.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
15 years ago

Why is it that Darwinists never discuss information content in structures?
Doing this would slowly bring about to the Darwinist notion of an ‘elephant standing
g on stilts’? Some biologist who objects ID said that because something looks
like it’s designed, does not means that it is, saying (paraphrased) the sun appears
to revolve aroung earth, but it does not, the sky appears to be blue, but it is not.

Though he forgot one more assertion: though every letter in Brave New World seems to
be specified, they are not. Or.. though a novel seems to have information content,
it doesn’t. They are lost…..

15 years ago

Idadvisors, you make a good point, Darwinian evolution in essence is reductionistic. What they failed to recognize is that empirically as in mathematics there is a point when an equation is irreducible. RM&NS are bounded by the degenerative and conservative genetic code of an organism.