Unsurprisingly, I too liked Alan Matheson's article.

Although there have been worrying signs of undue Christian influence in Australian politics of late, I remain confident that our strong culture of secularism and egalitarianism - no to mention a national antipathy to wowserism - will prevent us following our American masters completely in this respect.

Then again, Kevin Rudd seemed a little too eager to promote his Christian credentials during the last election campaign. His continued opposition to same sex marriages is one example of this.

I missed the point? Mmm ok perhaps you could give a 350 word precis of it with reference to the article I linked to.

What is the problem about Douthat referencing books that contain ideas Matheson wants us to adopt?

I'm all for open mindedness but not so much that your brains fall out Frankgol.

Dear Boaz
When I started to study science at a Marist Brothers school in 1966 I read Harry Messell's preface about how there might be a race of sub-terranean creatures on the moon who turn on their lights when it is night here on earth. I still think it is a better theory than ID.

martin, the article you linked argues (correctly, if boringly) that shouts of "theocracy!" in america are quite silly. but matheson shouts no such thing: he is quietly pointing out the influence of religious fundamentalist thought, and the danger of this. thus, the suggestion that he is "devastatingly destroyed" is simply absurd.

well, 250 words left. what shall we talk about? how about your arguments on another thread that morality comes from god: "Doing good and avoiding evil is meaningful only within a religious framework."

is that religious fundamentalist nonsense relevant here, or should we leave it for another day?

Hi Prez :) c'mon.. that was a wasted_post.

I can't get my head into the preface thing.. Messell was serious?

I like the way Perilous ferrets out all this interesting info. He gallantly brought to light the $220k Salary package of 'our foremost povery campaigner' (Tim Costello) from the annual World Vision report.
Now..he has blessed us with this 'Objective Origins' thingy.. great work P.

Objective means "Not" injecting biases into the observations.

Now.. if an individual comes to a set of facts with the bias "THIS' understanding is ruled out before we start" (i.e. that God created)
That is hardly objective.

Without even trying, I can make it tougher for the "it can be ANYthing BUT 'God created'.... crowd.

I suggest that if God has done things in the world, such as reported in the Old and New Testaments, and if those things are repeated in history over time, then there is a strong case to INCLUDE the supernatural into our assessment of objective information.

It is SPECIALLY relevant to those (like myself) who have experienced that supernatural power in healing.

The problem of skeptics anonymous is, a bondage to 'scientific' rules which include 'repeatablity in a laboratory'. Now in the case of instances of healing, this would never happen, because it is divine activity not human, and is not subject to human arrogance or whim.

So it leaves is pretty much in 2 camps. The 'haves' and the 'have nots' Those who have faith, (often backed up by real world miraculous experience) based on the solid and firm Word of God, and those who for reasons known only to themselves "Faithless".

I don't see much to be gained by our mob trying to 'prove' to the other mob that what we have or what we believe is real, because to them its all about 'faith/belief in fairy tales'.. in Victoria, saying such is illegal :) because it mocks, and holds up our beliefs to public ridicule. I'm fine with that, because my God is more robust than to need the defense of a vilification law.

Yet another "well, duh" moment, Boaz. You're full of them, aren't you?

"Now.. if an individual comes to a set of facts with the bias "THIS' understanding is ruled out before we start" (i.e. that God created)
That is hardly objective."

No, indeed it would not be objective Boaz.

But you are making the traditional ID logical mis-step of claiming that approaching a topic without bias in favour of divine intervention, means that you must perforce have ruled it out.

That isn't what "objective" means, Boaz. Objective means that you make no assumptions before you start, one way or the other.

The underlying problem is that if you are proposing that ID is "taught", the necessary prerequisite is the pre-supposition that "God did it". It is, however, not at all necessary to assume that "God didn't do it" if you are being objective. If he did, it will emerge from the evidence, and not from the apparent lack of evidence, which is the pillar upon which ID stands.

It is nothing more than a cheap conjuring trick - "look, nothing up my sleeve", when the rabbit is already in the false floor of the top hat.

Your case, as you are honest enough to admit, rests on some pretty thin ice.

>>in the case of instances of healing, this [requirement for repeatablity in a laboratory] would never happen, because it is divine activity not human<<

Which gives the human mind freedom and licence to invent anything it chooses to support the case for divine intervention, since it is by definition untestable.

No contest, really. Regrettably, it wouldn't constitute a very convincing defence in law.

"Your honour, when I planted them, they were geraniums. I think the Lord must have turned them into cannabis plants when I wasn't looking"