3/25/09

Atheism and Science : The Wedgie Document, the Second Papyri

Another manuscript fragment of “The Wedgie” document has been unearthed when a small boy turned on a fan in a junk yard and noticed a papyri leaf flying aloft.

I suspected that Prof. PZ Myers would eventually turn up in “The Wedgie” document. I suspected this due to his own statements and also due to the fact what when a “Scienceblog” has a category for “Godlessness” something juicy will surely follow.

“The Wedgie” Document Archives

Apparently, it required both Matthew Cobb (Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester) and Jerry Coyne (Department of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Chicago) to author a handful of words, a letter to the editors of the journal Nature.[1]

Interestingly, they offer a neo-definition of “science,”

“Surely science is about finding material explanations of the world — explanations that can inspire those spooky feelings of awe, wonder and reverence in the hyper-evolved human brain.”

They have certainly taken it up a notch: now science is meant to be emotive. Science is now, and has been since atheism pseudo-co-oped it, about filling the God shaped void in every human heart. It is now about placing the psychological band-aid which is one of atheism’s consoling delusions: the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence. Although, they are certainly not the first, and will surely not be the last, to seek meaning and emotions in the observation of the creation.


Awe in nature, aka nature worship or neo-pagan atheistic spirituality or in Sam Harris’ case Buddhism’s atheistic mysticism is a trend that is very popular amongst, in particular, the New Atheist sect of atheism who find meaning and spirituality by basically observing the world and saying, “How cool is that, maaaaaan!?!?”
This atheistic pseudo-spirituality was also foretold in the New Testament:
“…unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
…who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” (Romans 1:18-25).

Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne further wrote,
“The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution.”

At the end of their letter they answer their own question. Religion (whatever that is) has no problem with evolution (whatever that is). That is to say that, religion has no problem with the observation of bio-organisms and the noting of their various changes. What religion has a problem with are the promulgations of atheist activists who, in the guise of science, make utterly unwarranted and unscientific assertions about science leading to atheism.

Thus, to the last statement,
“the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

This is the line with regards to which Prof. PZ Myers wrote, “I especially like the last line.” And why not? They are, apparently of the same school of atheist activism: the sort that smuggles atheism through the back door and right into our classrooms within the fa├žade of science. After all, it was Prof. PZ Myers who stated that atheism and science are “inseparable.”

As long as atheist activists continue claiming that evolution leads to atheism they are only exacerbating their own frustrations and are warding off those whom they are attempting to reach via their propaganda. This is not due to the religious being afraid of the scientific “facts” presented to them by atheist activists but due to just how thin the veneer is upon which the atheist activists write their assertions.

In this light it is also noteworthy to note that the recently unearthed papyri notes that Philip S. Skell (member of the National Academy of Sciences and Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University) is warning students that if they have doubts about the ruling biological orthodox—Darwinism—they should keep their concerns to themselves for, the very real, fear of being blacklisted and risking their grades and or careers.
A parsed audio interview with Philip S. Skell in which he makes this point may be heard here as part 1, part 2, part 3.

[1]Correspondence,” Nature 454, 1049 (28 August 2008)

7 comments:

  1. Oh no you don't.

    The Discovery Institute has been caught with its fingerprints all over the Wedge Document, a fundie plan to lobotomize and "Christianize" science, and you right wing Xtian nutjobs are not going to just ridicule and BS your way out of it.


    You can forget that, sport. You fundies created this public relations disaster, and it looks good on you. Wear it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Captain pretty much sums it up. On an amusing side note, look at the "Athanatos" advertisement on the side here.

    "And on the sixth day, god created your brain...Use it!"


    Oh, the irony...

    ReplyDelete
  3. hey captain howdy, how about your produce some EVIDENCE for your claims, unless you enjoy making baseless assertions,

    here is one "God exists"

    now you can either accept that basless assertion like you expect us to accept yours or you can actually provide evidence for your statement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Awe in nature, aka nature worship or neo-pagan atheistic spirituality or in Sam Harris’ case Buddhism’s atheistic mysticism is a trend that is very popular amongst, in particular, the New Atheist sect of atheism who find meaning and spirituality by basically observing the world and saying, 'How cool is that, maaaaaan!?!?'"
    Dude. Seriously. Look through a telescope. Feeling awe? Did you get that shudder run down your spine when you realized that the light from star X took six million (or whatever) years to get here? That's it, man. It's not stoner philosophy.

    "Science is now, and has been since atheism pseudo-co-oped it, about filling the God shaped void in every human heart."
    Actually, science is about finding out how things work. The awe that theist scientists feel, I assume, is similar to that which atheist scientist feel (that would be an interesting MRI experiment, actually). In any event, the science is the same.

    "This atheistic pseudo-spirituality was also foretold in the New Testament..."
    Adorable! Two thousand years ago Ted Romans foretold of something now. That makes way more sense than him condemning paganism, with its varying degrees and types of spirits and animal gods and incorrect incantations and wrong majik.

    "What religion has a problem with are the promulgations of atheist activists who, in the guise of science, make utterly unwarranted and unscientific assertions about science leading to atheism."
    Yup, I remember it well. Scopes strode into my science class and told us that Darwin's newfangled theory meant there was no God. Then he laughed and offered to buy our souls. (Oh, and he mentioned something about common descent, meaning that our ancestors were monkeys or somesuch)
    So, no. Science does not lead to atheism. It's the universal solvent, washing away ignorance. Science leads away from ignorance. If religion is washed away simultaneously, what does that mean religion is?
    YECs aren't YEC because PZ or Dawkins or Laplace said something unpleasant. They're YEC because God's word says so.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They have certainly taken it up a notch: now science is meant to be emotive.
    Nope. Wrong again. That some activity may have a side effect doesn't mean that it was meant to.

    As long as atheist activists continue claiming that evolution leads to atheism they are only exacerbating their own frustrations and are warding off those whom they are attempting to reach via their propaganda.
    Wrong twice. The material you quoted said that science leads to atheism, not that evolution does. If you hate or fear science, then say so openly and honestly, and don't try to isolate evolution as some aberrant or special case that you can cull from the herd. Its as sound a science as physics. You pretty much have to accept them all or reject them all together.

    The claim is actually an empirical observation; when people get a look at real medicine they generally do tend to leave superstition, voodoo and other mumbojumbo behind, as counterintuitive as that may sound to you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is now about placing the psychological band-aid which is one of atheism’s consoling delusions: the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ai-VvboPnA

    Yes, this video by Neil deGrasse Tyson excites me and contributes to the subjective value I place on my life. Is this a delusion? How can I be delusional about something that is not a truth claim? Could I be delusional about liking peanut butter? Maybe I think I like it, but in reality I don't? Hogwash!

    If worshiping Jesus gives meaning to your life, then great. More power to you. But if you believe that it is a fact that a human being was born without a father, died, and three days later wasn't dead anymore, then you are delusional. You make crazy truth claims without evidence. Do you see the difference?

    But it's even worse than that. You think that you've figured out THE meaning to life. And frankly, it has made you into a bit of a jerk. When people become viscerally excited by observing nature, you besmirch them (to use a Mariano-ism). You think that because your statements of meaning are truth claims, that atheists' statements are as well. But when someone says, "Isn't it incredible that we're made of star stuff?!", they're not claiming to have some knowledge of objective meaning, they're just excited and want to share. If you don't share their excitement--fine--no biggie. But what makes you feel justified in calling them delusional?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kuhlmann, your reply could have been of use to me here, thanks.

    ReplyDelete