PZ Myers Copyright Infringement?

Coyne/Cob:”Surely science is about finding material explanations of the world.”

This is precisely what non-Darwinists need to counter. Is science really about finding material explanations of the world? or is there a way of doing science that does not make the materialist assumption?

We need to counter this, because when Darwinists say that intelligent design is not science, it is because ID does not fit well with methodological naturalism. But we are allowing the Darwinists to define what science is about by default if we don’t clearly and explicitly demonstrate the higher discipline of “going wherever the evidence leads” without materialist or religious prejudice.

“Of course the only bit of “science” that lends support to atheism is the bogus theory of macroevolution by chance & necessity.”

I’d go further than that - not even “macroevolution by chance & necessity” is an instance of science lending support to atheism. At most, a scientific idea could be integrated into an atheistic worldview - but A) that integration is not itself science, B) theists can and do integrate science into their worldviews, and C) the very topic of chance is at heart the stuff of philosophy anyway.

Even if someone disagrees with macroevolution (I personally do not, but I’m sure others do), there is no reason to cede the inane claims of these Dawkins-wannabes. They are abusing science in the name of political and social goals, and should be called out for said abuse.

I think this must be PZ’s final bid for fame and fortune. He’s realized he’s a washout in science, a 50 year-old associate professor at a cowtown satellite campus of an undistinguised flyover state university earning less than a truck driver. A Nobel isn’t in the cards for poor PZ and at this point no one would hire him. He has no marketable skills and is now radioactive, hazardous material for any university of note. Yet his hero Richard Dawkins is a full professor at Oxford and Dawkins has parlayed his atheism into multi-millionaire status by writing books that are eaten up by the adoring Godless masses. PZ has a really bad case of Dawkins Envy. There’s just no other explanation that fits the facts so well. I hope his inevitable book does well which must surely be coming out soon since he has to strike while the iron is hot and before his long suffering lovely wife decides she can do far better than a minimum wage earner with man-boobs.

Wow. That’s a lot of hostility, DaveScot. Do you have something personal against Meyers?

You really need to wonder about a man who sycophantically links himself to a more accomplished individual in hopes of having some of the glory and adulation for themselves. They are pathetic individuals and deserve nothing but our scorn.

“It shows that these people consider atheism a religious idea ”

To be fair atheism is a religious idea, I don’t think anyone really denies it (apart from Dawkins maybe) Atheism is a belief in the non existence of god (emphasis on the word belief) and I know plenty of atheists who think that their beliefs should be taken as seriously as others who do believe in a god of one form or another. When some European governments started talking about better legal protection for religious belief a few years ago some of the atheist and humanist groups made a fuss over the fact that non-belief in god wasn’t considered worth protecting.

Sure there are some atheists who claim that this belief is actually based on hard science (Dawkins again!) but there are plenty of non atheists who would say that their theistic beliefs are based on hard evidence as well.

Basically whether atheist or not there will always be people who think that they have the ultimate proof that their particular beliefs are correct.

Ludwig

Myers and his followers gleefully try to be as hurtfully offensive as possible to a group that includes a lot of good and decent people. Myers richly deserves a taste of his own medicine. It’s a dirty job giving it to him but someone has to do it. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Write that down.

I teach critical thinking. One of the things I tell my students is that if you read a news story headline posed in the form of a question, the answer is always “no.” If the answer were yes, the headline would have been posed as a statement.

NewsFlash!

Is Global Warming real?

Is Darwinian evolution supported by overwhelming evidence?

Is Telosmagnet bright enough to teach critical thinking?