Wow, that Hong Kong University professor sounds an awful lot like this guy:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], “Billions and Billions of Demons”, Review of “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997. (Emphasis in original)
>>of the real struggle between science and the supernatural<<
Well, that is pretty honest. Now, tell us all how we put the supernatural into science.
“After this step, chant ‘zooga zooga’ 3 times to put the spirit of Xogni into the material.”
That’s the most revealing evolutionist quote ever. Thanks.
It was always less about ideology than about the power to decide which ideology would be acceptable.
As Mr. Orwell had the character O’Brien state,
“The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”.
Thanks for the ping!
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense”
Would you be willing to hold biblical/religious claims against common sense to the same standards of intellectual inquiry?
Remember science is built to re-examine claims based on new evidence. Aren’t scientist the ones who usually call BS on bad science-even recently in the world of quantum physics a scientist called BS on his own theory.
My point is that science gets things wrong and then can revisit the theories without impugning the integrity of the scientific process. Religion/biblical claims can not revisit their conclusions without impugning the source-bible/god. So as these claims are shown to be off the common sense mark the sources are impugned over and over again-sun revolves around the earth, earth stood still, the moon is a ‘light’, the unfounded ‘exodus’ etc.
So if we apply the same standards of intellectual inquiry the religious/biblical claims are proven false and impugn the validity/reliability of the source-bible/god.
No where else in intellectual inquiry is a source material allowed to jump back & forth across the literal/figurative interpretations line. Why is religion/bible/god allowed this intellectually dishonest dodge?
The koran is a racist/bigoted collections of writings to promote social/religious/political/sexual control. we call that out for what it is.
Why do we not call out the bible/christian god for the convenient, mercurial flip-flopping of literal/figurative interpretations of ‘his words’ when subjected to the same standards of intellectual inquiry that science is held to?
“Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Actually, it is the fatal limitation of the creation rationalizers that they cannot conceive of evolution as being the “Divine Foot in the door”.
yup...liberals project alot.