Nevertheless, it's a significant milestone. Please help me to celebrate by reading the top five Sandwalk posts since November, 2006. Four of them are science posts! Only the non-science post generated a significant number of comments and that's because so many people tried—and failed—to meet my challenge ....
I challenge all theists and all their accommodationist friends to post their very best 21st century, sophisticated (or not), arguments for the existence of God. They can put them in the comments section of this posting, or on any of the other atheist blogs, or on their own blogs and websites. Just send me the link.
The Genetics of Eye Color
May 11, 2007
Regulating Glycogen Metabolism
June 30, 2010
Smart Crocodile Eaters?
September 25, 2012
A Challenge to Theists and their Accommodationist Supporters
August 1, 2011
Carnival of Evolution #38
There are three other posts that are inching their way up toward the top five ...
December 15, 2012
Ann Gauger Describes the Intelligent Design Creationist Version of Population Genetics
May 22, 2011
Junk & Jonathan: Part 4—Chapter 1
February 23, 2007
Genetics of ABO Blood Types
6 comments :
This will be good.
LM writes, "Only the non-science post generated a significant number of comments and that's because so many people tried—and failed—to meet my challenge; I challenge all theists and all their accommodationist friends...."
Oh, that Larry, and his penchant for bluster, and labels.
Okay, I issue a challenge too. I challenge all nudists, cellists, accordionists and accompanists to prove to my satisfaction that they are not poopy heads. But since I have already made up my mind that they ARE all poopy heads, this will be tough going for them.
steve, exactly. I'm glad you're finally getting this.
seriously, steve. I know you are a fan of Larry's, but even you should be able to see how inconsistent he is with his terminology, changing it at will, and seemingly on a whim.
Notice how he refers to the post in question as 'the non-science post', in order to distinguish it from articles related to such things as glycogen metabolism and the genetics of eye color.
How is this consistent with his usual, oft stated definition of 'science' meaning the acquisition of 'knowledge' through 'reason, healthy skepticism and critical thinking'?
Are none of those used or displayed, by him, when he lays out his challenge? If so, why not?
He is obviously making the distinction between 'science' as specifically referring to the type of experimental work done in labs in fields such as biology, chemistry, physics and so forth (in other words, how nearly everyone defines the term) and his OWN definition, which I pointed out is much closer to what most people refer to as 'common sense'.
Why is he abandoning, if only temporarily, his own term, steve? Thinking critically, and healthily skeptically (as opposed, perhaps to the kind of skepticism that catches every cold that comes around), rather than as a fan, would you care to offer an opinion on why he does this? Or why, given that he DOES do this, his blustery pronouncements about people 'failing' to meet his challenges should be taken seriously?
Without the trolls, you'd still be a year away ... ! Cheap and unwelcome traffic, perhaps.
Post a Comment