When I read stuff like this, I really despair for the future. Ignorance is only bliss until reality comes racing in and smacks us in the face.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing out on something by not being shaded by so many religious delusions.

but...maybe not. I'm content with sanity for now.

"If we have abdicated our birthright to scientific progress, we have done so by moving the debate into the realm of political and cultural argument, where we all feel more confident, because it is here that the Gut rules."

Doesn't this pretty much describe the blogosphere?

Lena the great has returned. Saints be praised.
The answer to your question is yes, absolutely.
Here's what I've learned about blogs. They are essentially like TV shows, distractions, chewing gum for the eyes. No matter can be discussed seriously, because it will always be met with something like, suck my dick, will ya? Then it falls into shouting matches. I think what ms. AL-Keida is doing is good, a noble effort, but lost among the yahoos riding their saddles on dinosaurs backs.

What can be done to fix it, nothing. When the PC was first introduced it was tauted as a great resource for education, shakespeare and Newton would be at peoples finger tips. Of course the reality was slightly different, it became the ultimate worldwide porno machine. Same with TV, it blossomed in the 50's, but look at it now, no comment is necessary. Same with blogs. The intention was good, but the reality is the same as with TV and computers. Shaped by the sensibilites of humanity, it quickly descended into what you see, a parade of callow, know-nothing clod-hoppers blasting their idiotic mouths on subjects they know nothing about. Unlike me, of course, I am definetly not a clod-hopper. Welcome to blog world. A noble idea that is now Springer land. It's good for a few diverting laughs, but that's it.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water on any subject or premise. Religion vs. science? What religion; what (and ‘whose’) science? What blog site, etc.?

I’m not a clod-hopper, just smart enough to know I’m not very bright (otherwise I’d be stupid), and someone who knows so much that he knows nothing.

“The ‘truth’ is out there.” — “Seek and ye shall find": Yeah, yeah, blah, blah; I’ve heard it a thousand times.

But tis true nonetheless: There is the sacred and profane; the truly omni-cultural, universal good and evil, the sweet, bitter, and salty, and to ‘know,’ i.e., begin to come to an understanding of some of this knowledge (truth) can be rewarding, fulfilling, and helpful without being sucked in by delusions or deceptions.

> If we have abdicated our birthright to
> scientific progress...

Blowhard alert!

(Takes one to know one)

> "This is how there's a "debate" over
> global warming, even though the
> preponderance of fact among those who
> actually have studied the phenomenon renders
> the "debate" quite silly.

Oh yeah?

This guy's a mook.

In America at least, there's been a strong push for relativism for decades now. "Right" and "wrong" have less meaning now. Creationism is just another point-of-view, and nowadays you have to respect how other people feel.

Mook maybe, poseur more likely.

The problem with these poseurs whose MO is ridicule, is their haughty air of self-righteousness thinking their allied with the winning team of science. Hip hip hooray -- I'm enlightened and your muddle headed!

Pfft.

Drill down and ask these poseurs to name, for instance, a few of the key weaknesses (all theories have them) in the chain of hypotheses leading to these so-called 'preponderant facts,' and they instantly fall mute.

IOW, they don't actually have clue one if science is telling the truth, their aim is merely to ridicule religionists. Pretty unimpressive.

>Of course the reality was slightly different, it became the ultimate worldwide porno machine

Give the internet a little more credit than that. Do you really want to go back to the days when you needed to go through several hundred spools of microfiche (sp?) to find a Time article from two years ago?

I was raised with the born-again crowd. I'd like to say that unless much has changed in the dozen or so years since I realized I wasn't into that stuff, everyone should know that for every guy who's putting saddles on dinosaurs and claiming that the Mississippi was formed by God's tears, there are ten born-again families smacking their own foreheads.

> Held to this standard, any scientific theory is rendered mere opinion. Scientific fact is no more immutable than a polling sample. This is how there's a “debate” over global warming, even though the preponderance of fact among those who actually have studied the phenomenon renders the “debate” quite silly.

He was doing so well up to that point.

There is no preponderance of fact among those who have studied the phenomenon, or among any other group of people on any subject. Facts just are. They are independent of people. That's what a fact is. The only thing there can be a preponderance of among people, experts or not, is opinion. And the practice of appealing to a preponderance of opinion among experts as if it somehow clinches the argument was nicely ripped apart here:

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

> for every guy who's putting saddles on dinosaurs and claiming that the Mississippi was formed by God's tears, there are ten born-again families smacking their own foreheads.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm a Darwinist, and I'm endlessly pissed off with the damage done to the theory's reputation by the pompous nastiness of so many of its proponents, especially since the Creationist lobby seem to understand Darwinism and its implications so much better than your average believer in evolution. I have a lot more respect for someone who understands but disagrees than I do for someone who agrees despite not really understanding.

Ah me...
I wrote a little thing aobut the problems of the blog.
Then I get the note from Ted Bundy. I said the internet is a worldwide porno machine. It simply is, who can dispute it? then he says do you really want ot go back to the old days of microfiche and some other stuff. Okay, now try to focus here people...where and when did i say that? ted bundy assumes things i did not say. why would i want to go back? i love the computer and the internet I love that its a porno machine. but it points up another monstrous problem with blogs or life in general for that matter. Nobody listens or reads or if they do, then are unable to infer what you are saying. They have preconceived notions and when they see something that they vaguely thinks resembles their preconceived thoughts, they proceed to put words into your mouth, into your writing and twist it into things you did not say. I'm not mad at ted bundy, he simply illustrates one of my points.
And by the way ted... I know these 2 co-eds...well..

Another monstrous problem is that dry humor doesn't come off well. I was kidding.

>for every guy who's putting saddles on dinosaurs and claiming that the Mississippi was formed by God's tears, there are ten born-again families smacking their own foreheads.

Those ten need to speak up then - they're associated with some major-league idiots, and the rest of us have no way to distinguish or discern this.

You only hear from extremists on any side of an argument-because they're the ones who make the most passionate and controversial pleas.

Do you think evangelicals encounter reasonable atheists (scientists who do their job and mind their own goddamn business) on a regular basis who identify themselves as such? Or do you think the only atheists they're aware of are idiots like the guy who wrote that name-calling article below and that pledge of allegiance jackass?