[FoRK] Brownback defines science

Jim Whitehead <ejw at soe.ucsc.edu> on Fri Jun 1 14:27:59 PDT 2007

>
Elias beats me to the punch. My $0.02:

>    "...reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order."
>
>  Fair enough.

The same can be said for almost any creature. Dolphins reflect a  
unique image and likeness, as do ants, mosquitos, cockroaches,  
spiders, scarab beetles, and, for that matter, dung beetles. I take  
away from this that all living creatures are unique and amazing, in  
their own way.

>  I've heard Atheists say that we're nothing but monkeys, referring
>  to people as merely advanced apes.
>
>    "...should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as  
> science."
>
>  Makes sense to me.
>
>  We all know atheists don't have a religion, but we do know that there
>  are some persistent trends in their thinking and sayings.

The OED does have a definition for theology that is: "In trivial or  
disparaging use: a system of theoretical principles; an (impractical  
or rigid) ideology" which might loosely cover athesism.

>  The truth to it is that we have evolved from some humanoid things
>  that have some scientific name that I don't know.  The falsehood  
> to it
>  is that it implies that humanity isn't something amazing.

Or it implies that the monkeys and apes are also amazing.

>  Humanity *is* amazing.  And people want leaders who recognize that.
>  When we have an atheist who can say that, rather than just merely
>  believe it or confess to it after interrogation, then we have a  
> chance
>  at an atheist leader.  But not before.

Atheists are fine with stating that humans are amazing. In many ways,  
humans are the most sophisticated living creatures on Earth, and this  
is measurable and demonstrable in repeatable ways. The disconnect  
comes in explaining why humans are so amazing.

- Jim

More information about the FoRK mailing list