I stumbled upon Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity at the bookstore. I don't have time to read it right now, but I thought I'd point to it since I'm sure some readers would be interested. Accuse me of being excessively Whiggish if you must, but it just reiterates that Creationism doesn't belong in a science class; the basic disputes are a rehash of philosophical & religious clashes which are timeless, or at least date from the rise of philosophy in the ancient world. Creationism is ahistorical; I believe it is rooted in psychological intuitions about ontology which rebel against systematic critiques which undermines naive perceptions of How the World Works.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I happen to personally accept both of these assertions:
1) A scientific world-view entails atheism
2) A scientific world-view contradictions Creationism
That being said, as matters of debate & discussion I think the former is an open question, while the latter is not an open question. When it…
I suppose you could, with some justification, accuse me of being a troll, given that my post "So I'm a Christian. Shoot me." generated an entirely predictable set of flames tearing me down for unscientific thinking, and for trying to claim that there is any kind of bias against the religious…
As promised, I've put a few tentative definitions below the fold, in hopes of clarifying questions in comment threads here and elsewhere. These definitions represent a starting point, not gospel. I'm not a philosopher, I haven't spent much time reading epistemology, and I may mangle things badly.…
In a response to my defense of Freud, Jonah Lehrer states that, with Harold Bloom (ewww!), he sees Freud as "one of the great artists of the 20th century." In my view, how we read Freud today -- as literature, philosophy, or science -- is largely a matter of choice, as is the case for most early…