Recent Comments
Nuggets from all over
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Mind, Soul, and Body
Life, Health, and Spirituality from an LDS Child Neurologist's Perspective
Disclaimer
The views expressed on this sight are my own and do not represent official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Anyone interested in learning more about such can find it at www.mormon.org
Blog at WordPress.com.Ben Eastaugh and Chris Sternal-Johnson.
Mind, Soul, and Body 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 24, 2009 at 7:12 am
Davis
I just hope people in Kansas don’t get any wild ideas for their school board
April 24, 2009 at 9:37 am
Lisa Emrich
That’s hilarious!!! I was a very faithful believer in school. Hmmmm, if I didn’t know that math was a religion and I blindly followed its doctrines, does that mean I was caught up in a cult?
Leave it to Calvin and Hobbs to give me something to ponder. LOL.
April 24, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Dave Collingridge
Good stuff – thanks.
I was thinking, some people call evolution a religion because of its quasi-radical “faith-based” assertions of knowing for certain the descent of mankind notwithstanding an obvious lack of conclusive evidence (or corroborating evidence if you are Karl Popper). There is also the rejection of competing views by the to evolution biology community, a rejection that is not based on scientific rigor, but rather loosely guided criteria of what constitutes science (the IDers are the latest victims to be ostracizsed). There’s also the excommunications of those in the biology community who question, in the slightest way, the core tenets of evolution.
Anyway, I think those people who argue that evolution is a religion are wrong. It sounds more like a cult to me, a cult whose religion is secular humanism and whose high priests are Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
April 25, 2009 at 6:12 am
Doc
Dave, you are right, except that humanism usually looks to the positive side of human nature. I have a hard time callling Dawkins a humanist. Probably more a radical atheism and positivism. Hence you get fights over Jesus fish with legs, blanket condemnation of faith and spirituality, etc. that are just pointless and create a dangerous sense of superiority and us vs. them mentality.
However exasperation with ideology, lack of rational discussion, and fighting the evidence out of fear radicalizes both sides, yours and theirs. Each side makes the other out to be monsters. Both are completely off base.
Mine is a middle path. I believe the evidence for evolution is much stronger than you do, but if others don’t, no big deal. It is inductive reasoning and impossible in some ways to verify experimentally. But the strength of the inductions is surprising the more we look at the natural world. When it comes to the very origins of life, organic soup etc, you are correct that it gets fuzzy. I have no problem with criticism, but I will absolutely fight anyone who claims it the heresy and monster you claim it to be. That is dogma, and it contributes to the problem.
Besides, you are like Calvin, refusing to examine how your own motivation for seeing a lack of evidence might cause you to overlook what evidence there is. It is kind of ironic that you are defending this point of view on a post that is satirizes it.
April 27, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Dave Collingridge
Doc,
I will be the poster child for defending good evolutionary science. I believe it is great science and needs to be done. Unfortunately there are some influential individuals within the evolution community that have gone beyond the reaches of science and attacked more broadly those who oppose evolutionary ideas.
I will also be the poster child for opposing creationism in science and education. I admit that some from the creationist side have also overstepped their bounds. Heck, leave the biblical creation to Sunday schools, not public schools.
I don’t need to take a stand against creationism nonsense; the evolutionists are doing a good job at that. But I am going to take a stand against secular humanists who vigorously oppose (a) the concept of God in science and (b) right-minded people who find fault with evolution. It is the evolutionist’s strong opposition to concepts of deity and people who critically analyze their theory which gives the discipline a cultic feel.
So as anyone can see, I have no problem with the evidence, as long as we do not use it to make outlandish truth claims and beat believers over the head with it.