Decius wrote:
] ] The Discovery Institute's appeals to academic freedom
] ] create a kind of catch-22. If scientists ignore the ID
] ] movement, their silence is offered as further evidence of
] ] a conspiracy. If they join in, they risk reinforcing the
] ] perception of a battle between equal sides. Most
] ] scientists choose to remain silent. "Where the scientific
] ] community has been at fault," says Krauss, "is in
] ] assuming that these people are harmless, like
] ] flat-earthers. They don't realize that they are well
] ] organized, and that they have a political agenda."
]
] Wired published a fairly long article on the creationist
] revival. It was interesting sort of as a microcosm of the
] anti-scientific thinking that is consuming our political and
] social lives:
]
] Develop convictions.
] Never think critically about your position.
] Come up with a strategy for advocating your perspective.
]
] Don't engage people who disagree with you unless it has a
] strategic purpose. Do not listen to them. They are the enemy.
] Your goal is to defeat them. They are evil, and everything
] they say hides an ulterior motive.
]
] The jaw dropping thing was the end. George Gilder: The
] creationist. George Gilder has been a major leader in the
] technical community for over a decade. He was the sooth sayer
] of the internet boom in the early nineties. The U.S. made
] significant policy decisions based on this vision.
]
] The telecom crash has hurt his credibility because he didn't
] forsee it. Some people have been wondering whether he should
] have been listened to, but most of the tech community still
] thinks of him as a leader.
]
] But to go to an audience like Wired, which is primarily read
] by engineers and technical business people, and associate
] yourself with creationism? People who make their living from
] applied science; people who understand the history of
] technology in unparalleled detail... hundreds of years of
] using the scientific method to investigate natural phenomena
] and harness them. And you go to them and tell them that
] conclusions ought to precede the collection of evidence! Thats
] an amazing thing. Like a rock star blowing his brains out at a
] concert in front of a million fans.
]
] Its important for that reason. George Gilder is dead.

Why does creationism have to be opposed to scientific method? That makes no sense! The ideologies of creationism and evolution (the practical scientific explanation) aren't mutually exclusive. You could have both. All pure creationism says is that there was an intelligence behind the architecture and execution of the universe. It doesn't say that things didn't happen on the time frames or processes that most evolutionists postulate. Science is not an enemy of God.

For myself, the more you know about science and the Way Things Work, the more you logically can conclude that it was not by chance or circumstance. It's far too well architected and the necessary steps for things to happen 'on chance' are dizzyingly impossible, even given billions of years. To put it simply, if you had all the pieces of a wristwatch in a box, and you shook it up for a billion years, do you think that you'd ever end up with an assembled watch?

RE: Wired 12.10: George Gilder is Dead!