tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621563012220915662011-07-08T02:00:13.725-07:00It's time to free humans from the supernatural. Dissecting faith and religion with science and reason.Gary Arthur Douglas IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10489249635652298875noreply@blogger.comBlogger51100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562156301222091566.post-13569956303913733042009-09-24T14:22:00.000-07:002009-09-25T13:37:20.762-07:00

I'm not a fan of the word "Darwinism". I know it has its uses, but I think it can cause confusion - and sometimes that is even intentional.The phrase is a favorite in creationist materials, its use often subtly implying that proponents of evolution are necessarily proponents of Charles Darwin. That implication is useful later, when the creationist claims that science is itself religion (and

Gary Arthur Douglas IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10489249635652298875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562156301222091566.post-69298225373490926662009-09-15T16:02:00.000-07:002009-09-16T12:12:20.946-07:00

One position currently fashionable among theists is that science is itself a faith. Through this assertion, theists hope to either elevate religion to the level of science - or to bring science down to religion's level. I'm honestly not really sure which.Actually, theists should not be so eager to be placed on the same playing field as science - and I'll explain in another article why that would

Gary Arthur Douglas IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10489249635652298875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562156301222091566.post-63881606859848738492009-09-14T17:30:00.000-07:002009-09-15T10:54:27.702-07:00

Previously, I took a swing at illustrating why a theory of god isn't needed as an "alternative" to the Theory of Evolution.I ended with the question of whether, as a theory, creationism could perhaps add to the body of scientific knowledge, or advance the general aim of investigation. Refer again to the Red-Handed Crook analogy: Perhaps it isn't directly relevant what the crook ate for breakfast,

Gary Arthur Douglas IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10489249635652298875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562156301222091566.post-68097607292178530242009-09-14T03:02:00.000-07:002009-09-29T13:16:32.324-07:00

I'm not going to address the validity of various incarnations of "creation science" (currently known as "intelligent design") - yet. But I do want to touch on one fundamental flaw in the platform of creationists hoping to introduce it into American education.The "Intelligent Design" lobby portrays its material as an "alternative theory" to Evolution. For the moment, let's ignore that theories

Gary Arthur Douglas IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10489249635652298875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-562156301222091566.post-77635077235924976232009-09-14T01:31:00.000-07:002009-09-14T02:55:53.298-07:00

Hello and welcome to the first post! I'm going to start right off with:Warning: This blog may tick off, offend, confuse or even disturb you. If you have difficulty thinking calmly while someone insults your cherished personal beliefs - then you might want to go somewhere less dangerous.With that out of the way, let me tell you what to expect from me: 1. Articles here will be based in logic,

Gary Arthur Douglas IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10489249635652298875noreply@blogger.com2