@Joel_Duff’s contribution is now live.
3 Likes
@Joel_Duff’s contribution is now live.
[/quote]
I would amend that to @Jay313 contribution with additional commentary from myself is now live.
3 Likes
Well, thank you and @Joel_Duff for trying but I got this message back in way less time than it took me to read it:
“My belief in God has nothing to do with my acceptance of current science facts. Especially since the science facts are always in a state of change.”
1 Like
Distancing yourself already? haha. Sorry. The owner of the platform gets top billing. 
Your brother is right about the first part. Belief in God doesn’t depend on science. However, belief in God can be destroyed by “current science facts,” especially when people are taught false facts about the world as if it were “biblical truth.”
Oh well. Tomorrow, the world will be flat and rockets will bounce off the dome in the sky. Those dang facts, always changing!
2 Likes
Finally got the chance to read your second installment. Well done, again. I enjoyed your discussion of intellectual honesty and humility. These two sentences were great:
While the popular perception is that intelligent people are naturally skeptical, in fact all humans are believing machines . We drift with the cultural tides, embracing popular ideas on the flimsiest of evidence, then clutch those beliefs tenaciously to protect our egos, strut our virtue, justify our actions, and advertise loyalty to our in-group.
Looking forward to the conclusion next week. Don’t be shy about giving us a reminder!
2 Likes
I think they must not have read it so carefully. I don’t think the conclusion that all creationism is undermined is derivable from Jay’s brilliant idea. But a young earth took a serious hit.
2 Likes
I agree, plus a word like “disproves” is overblown anyway – Friendly Atheist leans toward the provocative side.
2 Likes
Something! haha. The more the merrier. Glad Mr. Mehta enjoyed my deviled Ham. Spread the love!
I don’t think we can expect that particular audience to understand the fine lines between origins positions in the Christian camp. Young, old, evolutionary - it’s all creationism to them. (At least right now it is.)
3 Likes
Thanks, Jay.
The next post will be a week from today (Friday 23). Using Sam Quinones “Dreamland” as my primary source, I’ll be explaining how some of these factors operated in the medical and scientific arena to exacerbate the prescription opioid epidemic. It’s an interesting story. There are lessons to be learnt about the rush to believing (in this case, that opiates were not addictive).
1 Like
That would be interesting. As a family medicine doc who did his med school and residency during the “Pain is the New Vital Sign” push in 1999-2004 or so, I remember JCAHO and others saying folks could be put out of business if they didn’t treat pain well. There was both a carrot and stick mentality–people would be happy, consciences salved, etc. I’m not familiar with “Dreamland.”
Welcome, by the way. As a retired neuroradiologist who is raising children (if I understand it right from your other post), I wonder which career is more challenging? My own children are still young, at 11 and younger; I have a lot to learn, as my wife and I discover every day!
2 Likes
Agree that the push to treat pain by the powers that be really accelerated the use of opioids, with pain management clinics springing up on every corner and administrators pushing to get positive patient satisfaction scores. I look forward to your article to learn more.
2 Likes
Now, if you expect me to keep reading, you need to engage in some conversations other than this one.
Thanks for the update!
I’m still trying to figure out this site. Since it’s Biologos, I was expecting friendly evolutionary creationists. I’ve seen a number of fairly hostile posts from people who don’t seem to care much for Christianity at all. I’m active on FB, and I put a higher priority on dealing with YEC’s who are harming the church rather than atheists who harm only themselves. So many of the latter are reacting to the former.
Sometimes it seems that way, Steve. As an open forum, it is interesting how we get waves of YEC people, waves of atheist writers, and so forth, probably due to whatever internet disturbances arise. Some are openly antagonistic, some are truly seeking understanding and community, a safe place to voice their concerns. We try to provide that space, but sometimes fall short of our ideas and things get a little snarky. Bear with us, as I enjoy your contributions.
3 Likes
I hope you don’t mean personally hostile. The moderators enforce the “gracious dialogue” guidelines, so you (and anyone else) can flag any posts that cross the line. Just hit the three dots next to the Reply button and you’ll see the flag.
As Phil said, it’s an open forum, but it’s easy enough to pick your battles, or avoid them entirely.
This application hangs on some straight forward differences.
We can physically verify the shape of earth from many different organizations and vantage points. The age of the earth is not something to be verified by something as easy as seeing.
Basic scientific concepts debunk a flat earth
And the “leaders” of YEC groups are capable of recognizing and being honest about their contentions and bias. Recognizing the principles in which they disagree. Also understanding where the interpretations are which make the perspectives unorthodox.
YECers are willing to give positive evidence and arguments for their model. And construct an actual model to fit data.
These are some examples of why YEC is more credible than flat earth. And conflating the two is actually unhelpful and more like an attempt to make a MEME or to troll people.
“Hey man all fundamentalist faith are bad. No need to single out Islam, m’kaaaay?”
I beg to differ. Details matter. #notALL
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.