Among other things, we've been accused of doing exorcisms, and having "magic tea" parties.... And the biggest canard of all: that we are "anti-science." Not sure about the exorcisms, but I can picture the magic tea party:
And I am sorry to have to tell you, but accepting divine revelation as the highest form of knowledge is absolutely anti-science.
Science relies on data, and hypotheses or theories, to try to explain that data.
When you start with an absolute pre-ordained belief, which nothing can alter, you cannot do science in spite of your protestations -- as science relies on the scientific method, while acceptance of beliefs without any supporting data -- and in spite of immense amounts of contrary date -- is the exact opposite of science.
ps. The little bear is cute!
And I am sorry to have to tell you, but accepting divine revelation as the highest form of knowledge is absolutely anti-science. Oh, I left out DC's accusation that A-G and I also conduct seances. :^)
Lurkers, in the pic, that's A-G on the right, and me on the left. In between are our little buddies. As you can see, we are "younger than springtime," as ever.
RE the above italics: I am always so puzzled when people like you suggest that we who believe in the Logos must therefore, somehow, be "anti-science." Do you say that science is possible without reference to the laws of physics? Where do you think the laws "come from?" According to what criterion validated?
A materialist has no answer to such questions. A physicist friend has recently shared some thoughts with me on this issue:
[T]he ultimate objective of physics [is] to follow the evidence wherever it leads to comprehensively describe and explain the behavioral uniformities of physical objects. What constrains this key objective is the now dominant method of physics, the so-called “bottom-up approach” that starts from the basic building blocks and from there tries to explain the observed behavior on the basis of physical laws. The point is: Do we really need to start from the bottom, if our aim is to understand physical behavior in the most effective way? It seems it is possible that a more effective method can be found — namely, one that starts from the observed behavior, and then tries to explain it on the basis of the laws of science. Immediately it is visible that such a method, if found, would be much more efficient.
The requirement to start from the “bottom” and proceed “upwards” arises from the claim that in reality only matter exists and matter is built up from ultimate building blocks. This view identifying the concept of “reality” with “matter” is known as materialism. Materialism is a theory of “reality.” Yet “reality” is simply not an object for science; for no finite observer has ever seen, nor can see, “reality” in its total temporal and spatial extension; that is, as a singular object to which scientific methods and tools can apply. Therefore, materialism is a metaphysical belief (Britannica Concise, 2007). We point out that the growth of science over the past century has culminated in a radically new situation, in which a problem that had seemed for a long time to be merely a metaphysical question has recently obtained scientific corroboration and solutions: That rather than matter, the fundamental entity is the field (Infeld, Einstein, 1938; Weinberg, 2001).
The fundamental working assumption of materialism seems also to be shared by many biologists; I'd bet that most people who hang out at DC are materialists -- that is to say, back-door philosophers. Indeed, it is a basic tenet of Darwin's evolution theory that the fundamental building block is matter, and that via random mutation and natural selection, biological life just naturally grows in complexity over the course of evolutionary time, in ways that look "purposeful," but really aren't at all (Darwinism utterly rejects teleological considerations).
Of course there's more than mutation and selection involved here, because this is supposedly a "lawful" process -- that is, the matter is subject to the operation of the physical laws (mechanics, chemistry in the classical or Newtonian context).
The funny thing is, you can't get a materialist to tell you were the physical laws come from. It should be obvious that they cannot arise in an evolutionary process; they are not produced by random mutation and natural selection. If they had been, we would not be able to call them "laws": Laws are universals; that is, they extend to all natural phenomena in all spaces and times throughout the entire extent of the universe.
The problem with the "bottom-up approach" of materialism is that it does not recognize the universal context of all of nature, including astrophysical nature. It has no "big picture." But science needed the astrophysical context in order to validate Newton's gravitational laws, and to measure the speed of light.
A-G and I have a universal context in which we think about science issues, and much else besides. Ultimately, our criterion is the Logos of God, "by Whom and for Whom were all things made." Logos = Truth. It is the only imaginable cause or source of universal laws.
A-G and I share a cosmology that evidently has been increasingly well-founded by modern physics: the big bang/inflationary universe model. It just so happens that this model actually accords with Genesis. There are many atheists who also credit this model. But you perceive us to be "religious," and therefore somehow our belief in the same cosmology that atheists ascribe to convicts us, but not them.
I just don't know how Darwinists "do" logic: Materialist doctrine is utterly self-contradictory and ultimately self-refuting. Plus Darwinism needs to update its physics -- we are moving beyond material particles, to fields these days (e.g., quantum theory). And to the extent that Darwin's theory pre-supposes "matter in its motions" (plus "pure chance," as Monod put it) as the sole basis of biology, it looks increasingly ridiculous, in light of the breakthroughs in modern physics.
FWIW, just my two cents....
Thanks for posting our "mug shots!"