Joined: May 2007
|Quote (olegt @ June 21 2011,07:55)|
|Michael Egnor has rolled out a shiny new blog Egnorance. Srsly.|
This is a new blog, but I'm not new to blogging.
I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".
My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.
This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.
The least they could do would be to understand that whatever questions they think may be raised because there is a scientific, well founded theory of evolution, it is completely irrelevant WRT what they think and claim are secondary effects of the existence of the theory.
That is, the question of whether evolution is true or not is a different question from questions about whatever influence the theory may have on people and society.
If the theory is true, maybe our approach should comprise some reorientation among the religiously overconfident people?
But the theory is obviously true, the belief that something did something somewhere sometimes (in addition to the obvious effects of natural forces at play as we are able to show that they really are even today) , until now has not generated any evidence to support that faith.
The fact that Egnor doesn't know or doesn't want to acknowledge that acceptance of the ToE does not equate with atheism reflects rather unfavourably on his integrity.
His religion is not everybody's religion, far from it. It just confirms what we already know, ID is religious creationism.
The fundamental choice to be made, given the available information, is not whether chance provides a better explanation than design, but whether natural laws provide a better explanation than a design.