Thoughts in a Haystack

Donald James Parker didn't like my pointing out his confusion of science and religion and dropped by to complain. He then disliked my reply to him here so much that he posted another article about it but without the courtesy of a link or even a mention of my name. That's all right ... it won't stop me.

I pointed out "You don't give a damn what the science is, you'll simply make up whatever nonsense is necessary to save your religion."

So what does Parker do but proceed to make up nonsense:

The first thing he does is make up nonsense about "true science," which he later defines as "real solid science which is not historical (and hysterical) in nature." Science is defined by ... who else? ... scientists and they overwhelmingly agree that common descent and the evolutionary theory that explains it is science. Heck, even the Discovery Institute agrees that it's science. But even if he didn't know that, only a moment's reflection would reveal that his "definition" is bull. Think of all the historic sciences that his standard would exclude ... from criminal forensic investigation to the very archeology Biblical literalists so love to trot out as supposed evidence for their beliefs (except when it contradicts them).

And circumstantial evidence is recognized as valid enough to convict and execute murderers and rapists. The circumstantial evidence for evolution is convincing enough that scientists who study biology have nearly universally accepted it and the ones who don't are overwhelmingly doing so for religious reasons. All Parker is doing is demonstrating that proof beyond any and all reasonable doubt does not translate into proof beyond unreasonable doubt.

He also makes up the nonsense that it is only philosophically materialistic scientists who won't accept the supernatural as a scientific explanation, forgetting the fact that the scientist he was originally complaining about, Ken Miller (among many, many others), is no materialist. They recognize that supernatural explanations cannot be part of science since, by the very nature of such claims, they cannot be scientifically tested.

Then he makes up nonsense about a supposed "law" of nature that is nothing more than the same old ignorance about what "spontaneous generation" was supposed to be and what Redi, Spallanzini and Pasteur demonstrated. So I don't believe for a moment that he'll accept the results when a reasonable pathway to the first life (which would not have been anything so evolved as a cell) is reproduced.

But he's right about one thing: he doesn't want any part of science ... which was my point in the first place.

My other comment he thought unfair was: "Personally, I don't give a damn about what you or Miller believe about any god(s). Stop misrepresenting what science is to innocent children and you can believe any damn-fool nonsense you want." His complaint is:

No one is "suppressing" whatever knowledge Parker thinks there is about god(s). He and the other IDeologists are perfectly free to preach their religion in their proper venues under our Constitution: in churches, homes, religious schools and, if they want, on any street corner. What they are not free to do is use other peoples' tax money to teach their religion in public school science classes.

I'll leave it up to Parker's interpretation of his god's wishes to decide if it is right to lie to children about what is and is not science. But, given his ability to claim that the "other side" he wants to teach is science and, at the same time, is "knowledge of Him and the salvation He offers" with a straight face, I suspect his moral sense isn't that developed.
.