1. As a Reformed Christian (and former Catholic), I typically feel that Catholics are kindred spirits when it comes to science and the arts, and those of us who embrace the Creeds and common descent are prone to pointing to various papal endorsements of evolutionary science. This makes it all the more alarming to see Catholics falling for the ID line. Enter John Farrell with a sharp piece this week, following up on a nice analysis by DarwinCatholic.
2. David Sloan Wilson is the big name (that I know) behind an interesting site at Binghamton University on the topic of "Evolutionary Religious Studies." The program is Templeton-funded, and as near as I can tell is focused on outreach and dissemination but is not a degree program. I'll poke around some more, and will be interested to hear from anyone who knows more about it.
3. Thursday on Pharyngula, PZ Myers posted an article with a sadly typical description of some evangelical idiocy, then voiced a challenge I've heard from him before:
But I would think the concerted and largely successful effort in our culture to equate Christianity with the idiocy of belief in a 6000 year old world or a god who meddles in trivialities or denying the facts of a natural world would piss you off. Unless it's true, that is, that you don't mind having your religious beliefs associated with flaming anti-scientific lunacy.I responded in the comments and would be interested in feedback here.
Maybe you should try squawking a little louder.
4. Olivia Judson has a superb piece on mutations and randomness at The Wild Side.
5. This week sees a nice edition (#102) of Tangled Bank at Further Thoughts.
6. Like I need another reason to cook up an insane road trip to NYC? As reported in the NY Times.
7. And speaking of the newspaper of record, check out this interesting piece by a couple of neuroscientists, attempting to explain why I can eat salad and ride my bike, but can't resist playing Text Twist when I have three (or is it four) papers to write. The comments are enlightening too; it's like sitting in on a contentious platform session at the Society for Neuroscience annual meeting.
4 comments:
Memo for future post (having checked out your comment and some of the responses at PZ's): how 'compartmentalization' makes a convenient bat to whack any Christian who accepts evolution.
So I'm not the only one wasting my life playing Text Twirl? That's good to know.
All I can say in response to comments like PZ's is: no one would listen to me anyway. I'm on the heretical end of liberal Christianity - most evangelicals would probably consider me an atheist.
I can't take PZ's comments very seriously. I reject the creationist outright - as I have said before, I see what they do as deeply dishonest.* I've spent years criticising them, both from a scientific perspective and from a Christian perspective. Where I have fallen down is in my hesitation to criticise Hitchens, who seems to apply the same sort of sloppy thinking to his support for the Iraq War as he does to his conclusion that the world would be better off without religion. (How do you separate tribalism from religion? Here in Oklahoma it seems like Christianity, like college sports, is used by people to compensate for the lack of professional sports teams.)
*I tried to follow up that argument at Kevin's blog, but I found him unreasonably willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Ross; it wasn't a discussion about reality, but rather about some weird hypothetical that just didn't interest me enough to craft a reply.
>would piss you off. Unless it's true, that is, that you don't mind having your religious beliefs associated with flaming anti-scientific lunacy. - pZ blog
It is a reaction that I have had a lot as I read various things. That was interesting reading your comments all mixed in with everything else. But you took the time to do it and I think you answered that one guy in a reasonable manner without getting sucked into an endless thread.
Post a Comment