Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Creationists declare war over the brain

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Tim Tyler

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 6:08:09 AM10/25/08
to
Confused creationists see god in the brain:

``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
"how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down".''

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-war-over-the-brain.html
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

eerok

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 6:51:56 AM10/25/08
to
Tim Tyler wrote:

> Confused creationists see god in the brain:
>
> ``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
> "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
> now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking
> down".''
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-
war-over-the-brain.html

Making shit up about shit that other people made up (the state
of modern fundamentalism) is reaching new intellectual lows,
but at least the terminology shouldn't make people laugh out
loud... "non-materialist causation"? Give me a break.

--
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
Voltaire

Rolf

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 10:04:12 AM10/25/08
to

"eerok" <krk...@addr.invalid> wrote in message
news:6mgc2cF...@mid.individual.net...

From the link: "Denyse O'Leary, co-author with Beauregard of The Spiritual
Brain."

OhMyGod - Denyse! - that says it all.


Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 12:45:17 PM10/25/08
to
On 2008-10-25, Tim Tyler <seem...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Confused creationists see god in the brain:
>
> ``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
> "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
> now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down".''
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-war-over-the-brain.html

Quoting:

In June, James Porter Moreland, a professor at the Talbot School
of Theology near Los Angeles and a Discovery Institute fellow,
fanned the flames with Consciousness and the Existence of
God. "I've been doing a lot of thinking about consciousness,"
he writes, "and how it might contribute to evidence for
the existence of God in light of metaphysical naturalism's
failure to provide a helpful explanation." Non-materialist
neuroscience provided him with this helpful explanation:
since God "is" consciousness, "the theist has no need to
explain how consciousness can come from materials bereft of
it. Consciousness is there from the beginning."

It would appear that the theist's explanation of consciousness is no
consciousness at all.


Earle Jones

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 2:48:16 PM10/25/08
to
In article <keCMk.76633$AO4....@newsfe16.ams2>,
Tim Tyler <seem...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Confused creationists see god in the brain:
>
> ``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
> "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
> now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down".''

*
I agree that something is breaking down. But it isn't the materialist
paradigm. The next big breakdown (excluding the world's financial
markets) will come from the neurological community:

"Siding with evolution does not really pose a serious problem for
many deeply religious people, because one can easily accept
evolution without doubting the existence of a non-material being.
On the other hand, the truly radical and still maturing view in the
neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the
brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions."

--Kenneth S. Kosik (Nature vol 439, p138)

earle
*

David Canzi

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 4:21:32 PM10/25/08
to
In article <slrngg6j8h.1...@fishtank.brainwagon.org>,

People would laugh at you, if you told them that water's wetness
comes from a non-physical being called "Moiseau", who would take
you seriously if you told them instead that human consciousness
comes from a non-physical being called "Yahweh".

People would laugh at you, if you told them that God is borborygmi,
who would take you seriously if you told them instead that God
is consciousness.

--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 7:10:01 PM10/25/08
to
On Oct 25, 10:04 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> "eerok" <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote in message
> OhMyGod - Denyse! - that says it all.-


"Brain and brain -- what is brain?"


================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"


Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Vend

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 5:27:04 AM10/26/08
to
On 25 Ott, 11:08, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Confused creationists see god in the brain:
>
> ``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
>    "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
>    now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down".''
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-decla...
> --

Maybe they could hire SomeoneN.

Vend

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 5:36:42 AM10/26/08
to
On 25 Ott, 11:08, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Confused creationists see god in the brain:
>
> ``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
>    "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
>    now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down".''
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-decla...

> --
> __________
>   |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.

Anyway, dualism it was always an implicit assumption of IDists.

They claim they can distinguish the results of "unguided" natural
processes from those of intelligent/deliberate/purposeful activity.
If intelligent/deliberate/purposeful can arise from "unguided" natural
processes then their arguments collapse (not that otherwise they would
hold much water).

Tim Tyler

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 9:49:03 AM10/26/08
to
Vend wrote:

> They claim they can distinguish the results of "unguided" natural
> processes from those of intelligent/deliberate/purposeful activity.

That's fair enough in most cases. If something has "made in China"
stamped on it, it's probably designed.

Biologists believe the same thing. They think there's evidence to
show that living organisms evolved - and so were not designed. So
practically everyone agrees on this point - you can indeed distinguish
the intelligently designed from the naturally evolved.

> If intelligent/deliberate/purposeful can arise from "unguided" natural

> processes then their arguments collapse [...]

Not really. Creationists and biologists would agree that the Eiffel
tower was designed. It is not an "essentialist" argument.

Frank J

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 10:30:26 AM10/26/08
to
On Oct 25, 6:08 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Confused creationists see god in the brain:
>
> ``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
>    "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
>    now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down".''
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-decla...

> --
> __________
>   |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.

Note the steady retreat of the "non materialist" paradigm:

1859 - The materialist paradigm is one man's absurd fantasy.

1925 - The MP is so wrong that it can be kept out of science class.

1968 - The MP has failed, but students deserve equal time for the
paradigm that hasn't failed.

1985 - The MP is genuinely breaking down because evolution is a theory
in crisis.

2002 - The MP is genuinely breaking down, but there is no alternative
worth teaching, so students should only learn the MP, and "critically
analyze" it. Our way of course.

2008 - The MP is *just now* genuinely breaking down. Disregard all the
previous claims and just listen to Ben Stein.

Cj

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 12:46:11 PM10/26/08
to
The MP will not really break down until 2012 or thereabouts according to
my fortune teller, she's right because she charges $10 for a reading.
C

heekster

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 2:57:25 PM10/26/08
to

Sounds like a real gasser.

Earle Jones

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 3:53:39 PM10/26/08
to
In article
<cbfe1336-67e1-4e65...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Frank J <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:

*
Would that be the Ben Stein talk-show/comedian who does the deodorant
ads?

earle
*

Shane

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 7:22:58 PM10/26/08
to
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:45:17 -0500, Mark VandeWettering
wrote:

That's remarkably similar to the creationists explanation of
intelligence.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 10:33:46 PM10/26/08
to
New Scientist is sold in my local supermarket, on the same shelves as
magazines about ghosts and crazy people. And it reads like a
tabloid. Every week they tell you in New Scientist that science is
fundamentally wrong. It shoouldn't take long to realise that they're
blowing smoke.

slothrop

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 10:18:10 AM10/27/08
to
On Oct 25, 5:08 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Confused creationists see god in the brain:
>
> ``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
>    "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
>    now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down".''
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-decla...

> --
> __________
>   |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.

I like this part:

Non-materialist neuroscience provided him with this helpful
explanation: since God "is" consciousness, "the theist has no need to
explain how consciousness can come from materials bereft of it.
Consciousness is there from the beginning."

What exactly is the non-materialist neuroscientist gonna spend his
time doing? I want that job!

In my talks with theists the number one fall-back reason they give for
their belief in something else Out There beyond the explanatory powers
of mere humans is the existence of consciousness. This is certainly
going to be a battle-ground as neuroscience progresses beyond the
relatively young state it's in now...


slothrop

Vend

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 7:01:56 AM10/28/08
to

We can often detect human design. If we have seen something being
built by humans, or we have historical records of that, or it looks
similar to something we know humans create we can usually infer
design.

But IDists claim they can infer design without assuming anything about
the designer (actually they assume that the designer is intelligent,
but they don't provide a suitable definition of intelligence).

Since they can't predict anything about what their designer would
build, they implicitely assume that the designer is supernatural, or
it has a supernatural component, and attempt to show (using arguments
from ignorance) that certain features of biological organism were
impossible, or very unlikely, to be produced by natural processes.
Therefore, they claim, these features required a supernatural cause
(false dichotomy).

They don't explicitely use the term 'supernatural' to avoid sounding
religious, but they use the term 'intelligent' as opposed to natural,
which implicitely assumes that intelligence is supernatural.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 7:46:20 AM10/28/08
to
On Oct 25, 4:45 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 2008-10-25, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Confused creationists see god in the brain:
>
> > ``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
> >    "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
> >    now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down".''
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-decla...

>
> Quoting:
>
>         In June, James Porter Moreland, a professor at the Talbot School
>         of Theology near Los Angeles and a Discovery Institute fellow,
>         fanned the flames with Consciousness and the Existence of
>         God. "I've been doing a lot of thinking about consciousness,"
>         he writes, "and how it might contribute to evidence for
>         the existence of God in light of metaphysical naturalism's
>         failure to provide a helpful explanation." Non-materialist
>         neuroscience provided him with this helpful explanation:
>         since God "is" consciousness, "the theist has no need to
>         explain how consciousness can come from materials bereft of
>         it. Consciousness is there from the beginning."
>
> It would appear that the theist's explanation of consciousness is no
> consciousness at all.

Or to edit that down: "Non-materialist neuroscience provided him with
this helpful explanation: The theist has no need to explain."

Since clearly that is /not/ an explanation, but an excuse, and not a
valid one, the bubble bursts.

Tim Tyler

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 8:18:23 AM10/28/08
to
Vend wrote:

> We can often detect human design. If we have seen something being
> built by humans, or we have historical records of that, or it looks
> similar to something we know humans create we can usually infer
> design.
>
> But IDists claim they can infer design without assuming anything about
> the designer (actually they assume that the designer is intelligent,
> but they don't provide a suitable definition of intelligence).

Well, intelligence is a common enough concept - most people
have some idea what it means.

> They don't explicitely use the term 'supernatural' to avoid sounding
> religious, but they use the term 'intelligent' as opposed to natural,
> which implicitely assumes that intelligence is supernatural.

Hmm. ISTM that they bend over backwards to avoid the association
with supernatural beings - since that just gets them barred from
the US classroom on legal grounds associated with teaching religion:

"Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God,
it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell
you who the designer is. While most people - including myself -
will think the designer is God, some people might think that the
designer was a space alien or something odd like that."

- Michael Behe

Desertphile

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 1:37:28 PM10/28/08
to

By "non-materialist causation" he means "Magic fairies." Someone
should wake up Sir Arthur Conan Ignatius Doyle.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Desertphile

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 1:35:39 PM10/28/08
to
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:08:09 +0100, Tim Tyler
<seem...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Confused creationists see god in the brain:
>
> ``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
> "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
> now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down".''
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-war-over-the-brain.html

Much like "Darwinism is in imminent collapse," predicted in the
late 1800s.

Louann Miller

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 5:01:31 PM10/28/08
to
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in
news:o8jeg41me5od47ngh...@4ax.com:

> Much like "Darwinism is in imminent collapse," predicted in the
> late 1800s.

I was broken of believing "we will win ANY TIME NOW" claims in junior high
school, when for a while I read UFO books. All of them promised irrefutable
proof ATN. Eventually I realized all those books were at least ten years
old (in circa 1980) and no proof had turned up.

Shane

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 6:27:42 PM10/28/08
to


Of course just as one swallow does not a summer make, one
quote does not an argument make,

So I see your Mike Behe, and raise you a handful of William
Dembskis, whos quotes show a remarkable lack of bending over
backwards, but may be considered to demonstrate a
willingness to bend over forwards.

“To lift that pall will require a new generation of scholars
and professionals who explicitly reject naturalism and
consciously seek to understand the design that God has
placed in the world"

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being
created in the image of a benevolent God."

"The world is a mirror representing the divine life..." "The
mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent
design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated
in the idiom of information theory."

"I think the opportunity to deal with students and getting
them properly oriented on science and theology and the
relation between those is going to be important because
science has been such an instrument used by the materialists
to undermine the Christian faith and religious belief
generally." "This is really an opportunity," Dembski added,
"to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not
just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and
reclaim it for Christ. That's really what is driving me."

"But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental
level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think
God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches
to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world,
the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you
are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless
material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so
there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God
get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting
it."

"Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design
should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets
rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has
kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration."

"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if
its practitioners do not have a clue about him."

"My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in
Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.”

Frank J

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 7:18:02 PM10/29/08
to
On Oct 26, 3:53 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <cbfe1336-67e1-4e65-a0bf-e9babdd45...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> *-

You know that, but for the benefit of new lurkers I should say Ben
"Expelled" Stein.

Frank J

unread,
Oct 29, 2008, 7:15:48 PM10/29/08
to
On Oct 26, 12:46 pm, Cj <C...@mist.net> wrote:
> Frank J wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 6:08 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Confused creationists see god in the brain:
>
> >> ``YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz,
> >>    "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it
> >>    now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down".''
>
> >>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-decla...
> >> --
> >> __________
> >>   |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/t...@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.

>
> > Note the steady retreat of the "non materialist" paradigm:
>
> > 1859 - The materialist paradigm is one man's absurd fantasy.
>
> > 1925 - The MP is so wrong that it can be kept out of science class.
>
> > 1968 - The MP has failed, but students deserve equal time for the
> > paradigm that hasn't failed.
>
> > 1985 - The MP is genuinely breaking down because evolution is a theory
> > in crisis.
>
> > 2002 - The MP is genuinely breaking down, but there is no alternative
> > worth teaching, so students should only learn the MP, and "critically
> > analyze" it. Our way of course.
>
> > 2008 - The MP is *just now* genuinely breaking down. Disregard all the
> > previous claims and just listen to Ben Stein.
>
> The MP will not really break down until 2012 or thereabouts according to
> my fortune teller, she's right because she charges $10 for a reading.
> C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Would "thereabouts" be 12 Dec of that year? If so, dontcha love the
originality?

0 new messages