Social, political, and cultural myths and illusions permeate all the "liberal (ha!) arts": what we are witnessing now is an attempt to reach into the science classroom with the same vapid hands, because science is dangerous to the maintenance of illusion. Ultimately, the movement to bring religion into the classroom is not so much about religion itself, but rather the alarming consequences of clarity.
Damn I just read it and was about to put in my own nomination for it! I thought omniverous' discussion of certain historical "facts" was just as insightful and interesting as the difference between history and science as educational subjects.
Manifest Contagion, I loved it... and would love to know where he got all of that info.
Anyway, seconded. Definitely seconded.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
My regular oeuvre is indeed essentialy lyrical, chiefly poetry. I find science also lyrical, but try to write and speak about it with the sweep of lyricism and oracular speech in check, seeking a balance that retains passion but does not traduce science's rigor.
It's an unforgiving high-wire, and sometimes I fall, but EvC has been a tremendous boon, a community of knowledgable people who spy my missteps when I do not.
I try to value the challenges, corrections, and validations equally, but I confess a POTM nomination like this one, from members I respect, means a great deal to me.
TimChase at "A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents"
Name: TimChase Forum: Intelligent Design Thread: A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents Post #: 105
Now that isn't something which we need to debate, but nevertheless, it is something which I regard as symptomatic of a more fundamental problem which exists in the intelligent design movement -- and this is a tension between its attempt to appear scientific and the essentially religious nature of the ideology.
In essence, the old earth creationists (who are willing to admit that the earth is perhaps as old as 4.5 billion years) are being pulled in the direction of science -- at least in comparison to the young earth creationists (who hold that the earth is not much older than roughly 10,000 years) who are holding firm with a more literal interpretation of the Bible.
Now this is not to say that the old earth creationists are actually being scientific, but rather, they are permitting science to determine more of the content of their beliefs. The real tension, however, is between the objectivity required by science and the faith required by religion. This tension is created by the very attempt to make God an object of both domains. For the belief in this God to be scientific, it must be falsifiable by reference to evidence. However, for the belief in this God to be a matter of faith, it must be something which one believes in independently of evidence. The standards of science and standards of religion must necessarily come into conflict to the extent that God belongs to both domains.
Now that isn't something which we need to debate, but nevertheless, it is something which I regard as symptomatic of a more fundamental problem which exists in the intelligent design movement...
I think there is something profound there, about the fundamentals of the creation/evolution debate in general.
As always, this topic in the POTM forum is NOT the place to carry on that debate.
The idea is really pretty simple, and it's very consistent both in Scripture as well as being what everyone in the church believed for the first few centuries the church existed. Christ died to deliver us from sin. We receive that deliverance by faith apart from works. That deliverance comes in the form of mercy, the forgiveness of past sins, and grace, the power to overcome sin. If we are diligent to add to our faith the virtues described in 2 Pet 1, then we shall also be saved in the future, at the judgment, because we will have patiently continued to do good (Rom 2:7), and we shall receive eternal life and an entrance into the everlasting kingdom of Y'shua the King. For it is only those who endure to the end who shall be saved, whether or not they have been saved by faith.
IMO, an excellent, Bible supported explanation of the difference between salvation and judgment.
There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
Author: robinrohan Forum: Social Issues and Creation/Evolution Thread: In defense of nihilism Post #: 174
In a perfect counterpoint to his poetic opening post, robin deftly weaves the web of chance events that make bad things happen to--and at the hands of--good people (no demons necessary) in spare, lucid prose.
Author: arachnophilia Forum: The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy Thread: The Epic of Gilgamesh... Post#: 7, "some analysis"
As I mentioned above, I've spent many hours the past few days reading EvC threads, and it has reminded me of why I keep coming back.
In this post, and a number that follow, arachnophilia dissects what is too often breezily dismissed: an incompetent, error-ridden, agenda-driven text. He fillets this shoddy work with knowledge and skill. It cannot have been pleasant work, but it is important and necessary.
I've nominated three posts that esp. struck me these past few days; arachnophilia's had me reaching for a pencil to take handwritten notes. Thanks for the heavy lifting, arach.