How to spot a hidden religious agenda

[Iason Ouabache]

BTW, New Scientist just pulled this article because they "received a complaint about the contents of this story."  Spineless mother fuckers. 

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126975.800-how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda.html?DCMP=OTC-rss

Red flag number one: the term "scientific materialism". "Materialism" is most often used in contrast to something else - something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.

The invocation of Cartesian dualism  - where the brain and mind are viewed as two distinct entities, one material and the other immaterial - is also a red flag. And if an author describes the mind, or any biological system for that matter, as "irreducibly complex", let the alarm bells ring.

Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense.

When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and "biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind, random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as "astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism".[/b]

This, and especially the first and last points in particular, is, in large part, one of the things that I was talking about HERE

God Does Not Remove the Terror of Science!!!!

Many people cling to the belief of a divine (or, in the case of some cults, alien) creator with the idea that if this creator is real, then it will somehow make the world "meaningful" or somehow "explain" existence. Well, i don't know what to believe, but I know that the existence or non-existence of God won't change the meaninglessness of our existence one bit either way!


Are "the Sims" meaningful?!? They had an intelligent creator!!!!!
A divine creator doesn't solve anything, it just moves it somewhere else! So what if God created the universe? So what if we were made for a reason? Where did the creator come from?!? What is his reason?!?!?!?!?.

Sooner or later everything boils down to something arbitrary! Everything falls apart, either one way, or another! A meaningless creator does not a meaningful universe make! GOD DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF SCIENCE!!!!!

Cool position, I can relate but what's with the "terror" of science? I just don't get the terror factor.

I think it was a play on the Subgenius Dictum "Science does not remove the terror of the Gods".

It is indeed a reference to that aphorism, but it is also a reference to many people's aversions to the implications of many scientific concepts and ideas (evolution, thermodynamics, reductionism (especially as applied to biology and psychology), the big bang/cosmology, et cetera), and the general idea/implication that humanity (and, indeed, the universe itself) is just a coincidence and has not been afforded any special role or status in the cosmos

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Actually, now I think of it, I guess that my point was more that even if the first and last disguised ID claims were true, it would still be the same as if they weren't, just as arbitrary and meaningless... or something... This is worded really badly and probably obsucres my point more than clarifying it...