You don’t need to be a scientist to know Earth’s age or that life evolved. You just need be one who embraces objective truths.
When I read stuff like this, my heart sinks, especially when it comes from a scientist. Isn’t it sad? Despite the fact that the official age of the Earth and practically every scientific “fact” has bowed to new discoveries, here we have a scientist implying that *NOW* we can be sure. The problem is, Neil’s comment suggests he is unaware of the most elementary observation a scientific-minded critical thinker can make: How many “objective” truths of the past are in the scientific dustbin of the present?
I’m with Neil, in a sense: I embrace objective truths. I just think it’s unscientific and irresponsible to imply that today’s “age of the Earth” is among them. Haven’t we learned from the past?
Think critically, people. Question all self-proclaimed experts.
First allow me to clarify: I’m not asking why you believe that ill-suited organisms tend to die off, leaving better-suited organisms to survive. I’m not asking why you believe in homologous resemblance across species or kingdom. I’m not asking why you believe in variations of alleles. I’m asking—well, I’m asking three questions, actually—and the first one is: in your own words, why do you believe that all of biology is the result of unguided anagesis and/or cladogenesis operating over billions of years? The latter is what I refer to when I use the phrase, “conventional evolutionary narrative.” The second question is: in your own words, what are the strongest challenges to the conventional evolutionary narrative? The third question is: what would it take to make you lose faith in the conventional evolutionary narrative?
As is often the case when challenging their sacred dogmas, I’ve been battling an entire gaggle of Gnu atheists, led by Richard Wade over at Hemant Mehta’s blog. It all began when Wade left the following comment that, to me, perfectly articulates the central pillar of Gnu atheism. When I challenged Wade’s assertion that there is “no evidence” for God and asked him to define “evidence” for me, he said:
I haven’t been inspired to write much lately but today I caught wind of the whole ENCODE thing. I don’t know what (a)theists are saying about this, but I can imagine. My bet is that it’s business as usual: snarl, hype, misinformation and a noticeable absence of statements even remotely construable as conciliatory. As the “junk DNA” thing is old news, I don’t have much to say about it, other than to warn atheists against disbelief bolstered by illogic.
Jeffrey Jay Lowder has replied to my critique, and I’ve realized that sometimes I talk too much. I suspect verbosity obscured the point because Jeff seems to have misunderstood my criticisms (though I might misunderstand his, only time can tell). I’m responding to his rejoinders elsewhere, but today I want to offer an alternative description of my objections to Jeff’s AHS. But first, a note on brevity.
One source defines pareidolia as, “the imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist.” Of course, the atheist / materialist crowd loves to cite pareidolia as an explanation for belief in things “supernatural,” but I find that ironic. After all, we’ve got no shortage of confirmed pareidolia in the “science” of the Darwinian narrative. Quite literally, some of these “scientists” see grandiose patterns from nothing more than a few teeth or part of a skull.
Sorry, I was on the internet too much today. I found this kookery over at Paul Zachary’s “free thought” blog, and I felt it needed to be called out for the small-minded bigotry it is:
There are three kinds of religious scientists (and mathematicians): cowards, liars and idiots. The cowards need to be reassured and rescued, the liars need to be challenged and contested, and the idiots need to be exposed. It is because of this that I have become an engaged atheist, outspoken and loud, a “new” atheist if that’s what you want to call it. As long as the cowards, liars and idiots are protected by our silence and general disinterest in anything not directly related to our research, they will continue to compromise the credibility of our fields. You can be a brilliant scientist and still believe in god, but you can’t do it sincerely. That’s a problem. Sooner or later will be a clash, whether it’s in the form of muddling research, deceiving students or misrepresenting reality in a public statement or lecture. If you’re going to devote your life to the pursuit of truth, then you better have enough guts to stomach the implications, all of them.
Right, because conflicts of interest *ONLY* arise when scientists are religious. Bigoted kookery! And only the super-rational atheist scientists are metaphysically sincere! Bigoted kookery! Of course, Ed Kroc the bigot forgot all about the fourth kind of religious scientist: the ones who contribute more knowledge to science to science than Dawkins, Myers, Harris and Coyne combined. Who cares though, because, via revelation from Ed Kroc, we can be certain Francis Collins will be out there muddling research, deceiving students or misrepresenting reality, sooner or later. After all, only *THEIST* scientists do that!