Friday, November 20, 2009

Daily Wrap-Up


The Selective Compassion of Karen Armstrong: "Among people who know nothing about religion and don’t care much about factual information (an unfortunately large demographic), Karen Armstrong has become something of a sensation. But for those who think that claims about religion, ethics, or history should have some grounding in reality, Armstrong is considered an embarrassment." H/T: Darwiniana


A Christian Defends Ayn Rand: "There is one aspect of Rand's worldview, known as objectivism, which any Christian should appreciate: her belief in absolute reality. Rand believed in an objective world external to man's senses, and with it, absolute truth and morality…Rand's belief in objective truth and morality, regardless of its form, is an aberration among atheists."


Scientists are Objective Seekers of Truth, Right? A hilarious gaffe from Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of [global] warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’” A “travesty?” Why is it a "travesty?" And yes, the gaffe is real.


Ken Wilber Rejects Darwinism: “Folks, give me a break on this one. I have a Master’s degree in biochemistry, and a Ph.D. minus thesis in biochemistry and biophysics, with specialization in the mechanism of the visual process. I did my thesis on the photoisomerization of rhodopsin in bovine rod outer segments. I know evolutionary theory inside out, including the works of Dawkins et al…. Instead of a religious preacher like Dawkins, start with something like Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. And then guess what? Neo-Darwinian theory can’t explain shit. Deal with it.”


Confusing Evidence for Common Ancestry With Evidence for Darwinian Evolution: "Both at the Dover trial and in his lectures and books (such as Only a Theory), one of Dr. Kenneth Miller’s primary responses to Michael Behe’s arguments for irreducible complexity is to cite evidence for common ancestry. This class of evidence does not refute Behe because at most, evidence of sequence similarity in DNA demonstrates common ancestry—not a Darwinian evolutionary pathway. Indeed, on closer inspection, it turns out that much of Miller’s favorite evidence does not even provide a strong case for common descent: Miller assumes that functional genetic similarities must result from common descent, ignoring the possibility that such biochemical similarities might result from common design upon a functional blueprint."

2 comments:

Justin said...

As a religious studies scholar, I fully agree with the assessment of Karen Armstrong. She is one of those "less than useful" people, if you know what I mean.

Todd White said...

Yeah, and the media love her. What a shock!