"....what is the basis for your saying that reductionists will inherit the earth?"
His basis? He has performed a brief review of the progress of naturalist thought,
since Dr. E. Darwin wrote his poem 'Temple of Nature',
since M. Shelly read that poem
since M. Shelly witnessed Dr. E. Darwin's experiments, and
since the 18 year old girl wrote Frankenstein,
since Annie Rand loved her cats, but hated her nonkids,
since the USSC ruled that sodomy was constitutionally protected,
a brief review of naturalist thought provides .... 'evidence' that the naturalists are winning ...
But, in truth, he is just angry. All the time, angry (though he would call it cold, calculating rationalism, sprinkled with an intense, normal desire to win).
Why is this? Who knows. But the truth is this: he spends a lot more time on his computer than your average individual, and engages almost exclusively in one activity: slamming Christians.
There is a Christian, or more likely, someone who claimed to be Christian, that caused these pieces of evidence together to be emotionally expoxied all together into something he calls the 'truth' into his heart. This is someone who never writes about his heart, or anyone else's.
Thus, he believes, rationally, the word 'inherit' is fair. Because as a priest of reason his mission is indeed to convert the heathen.
And missionaries do what they do ... because they are called to do so. Who called him?
Just doing some fact checking here. By "E." Darwin did you mean to indicate Charles Darwin's father, Erasmus Darwin? If so, more info, please!!!
I'll write again what I wrote to metacognative (sic). Try to make a minimal effort to make sure what you're saying is true, and people might take what you say seriously.