I was reading another one of these articles today and saw something interesting. I went back over a couple dozen articles and this poster always “pings” a list of people, who I guess are like minded. There is one that within a few minutes of the original post always posts back the exact same thing (Alamo-Girl— “Thanks for the ping!)
Ive noticed this for every single article he’s posted,a dn this particular person always say the exact same thing, usually within minutes. I think this guy has multiple screennames as well and answers himself with different personas). Just an observation.
It’s a mutual admiration society.
I’m not sure what psychological kick they get out of it. If you really want to study it, it is psychologically interesting.
It would probably be valuable as a source for various mental pathologies. But you will certainly need a strong stomach.
One thing you’ll notice, most of the opposition comes from people who speak only for themselves. Most of the support comes from a steady group of people egging each other on.
None of the “science” threads last long anymore before they are overrun and inundated with Biblical quotations and internecine fractiousness. The science at the root of the thread serves only as a starting point for yet another food fight.
Maybe I should have said it’s a mutual aberration society.
I have no problem with people who see the world through the prismatic glasses of religious interpretation. What is annoying is the concerted effort to turn every non-religious discussion into a religious conflict.
The attacks against science, and evolution in particular, bring out the worst of illogic and vehement partisanship. In this twisted frame of reference, science is bad because it is a religion, and religion is good because it’s scientific.
In this worldview, evolution is false because certain discoveries have brought new information to our awareness, and the scientist adjusts his theories and suppositions to accommodate the new understanding. But religious dogma is not so facile; it cannot bend to the winds of change and must resist as long as it has strength to do so. It becomes true because it is unchanging, while science is false because it changes.
Worst of all is the treatment of evidence. One would think that a logical chain of evidence would be given careful scrutiny and attention. Well, in a manner it is. It is examined for the slightest possibility of any error, even the carefully calculated odds which prove the validity of the concept, because they are stated as “within a margin of error”, are proclaimed to be wholly false thereby.
... While at the same time, the most tenuous and ludicrous explanations of what might have happened while no one was there to observe it are taken to be virtual divine revelation. No evidence or credence is needed.
This is not the way to appreciate a religious view of the world. It is needlessly contentious and pointlessly argumentative.
A proper religious view acknowledges the wonder and mystery of creation, even when the skeptic raises doubts. Even in the face of logical explanation of mundane happenstance, wonder is still a delight for the inspired.
Years of diligent study may produce an individual trained in optics, capable of designing space telescopes that don’t need bifocals, but the beauty of a rainbow or a sunset will remain.