<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ignorance is nonpartisan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/</link>
	<description>Feed Your Brain</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:49:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Leo</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/comment-page-1/#comment-72</link>
		<dc:creator>Leo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=107#comment-72</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s interesting how we have two different interpretations of the third option. I guess I see nothing about #3 that automatically excludes belief in God, although I can see how the first two options don&#039;t perfectly represent the full range of theistic belief on the subject of human development.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s interesting how we have two different interpretations of the third option. I guess I see nothing about #3 that automatically excludes belief in God, although I can see how the first two options don&#8217;t perfectly represent the full range of theistic belief on the subject of human development.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Durkheim is Dead</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/comment-page-1/#comment-71</link>
		<dc:creator>Durkheim is Dead</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=107#comment-71</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve taught about ID for a while in my Senior Seminar in Sociology class, and you can make an argument for either, but it falls more with option one.  Most ID folks are young earth creationists, although a handful (such as Behe) have an heir of scientific authority.  Behe seems to stay away from the timeline by stressing the &quot;irreducibility&quot; of biological phenomena such as flagella in bacteria, but also states outright a Christian perspective.  That said, ID normally requires belief in such mush as Flood Geology, a &quot;theory&quot; that claims that the earth was inundated by a global flood and all the world&#039;s great features (exhibit A: Grand Canyon) were carved in a few days.  Another certainty to ID afficionados: that all life was created according to their &quot;forms&quot; and that evolution cannot lead to speciation, which of course would preclude number two above.  I&#039;ve got to think that a number of deists and agnostics would pick number two on the basis of, &quot;well, maybe.&quot;

That said, the story that never gets told is how a sizable but still minority segment of the protestant population has now been christened int he media as the true &quot;Christians&quot; and get their views presented as the &quot;Christian&quot; message.  Not that the Catholic Church is the poster child for progressive, er, anything, but like many mainline protestant groups the Church does not find a problem with evolution, although I think they would favor the devine guided version - whatever that means.

PS - the mechanism for the &quot;great flood:&quot; a bursting of the portals of the sky, i.e., the Mediterranean firmament, and the fountains of the deep, or guysers.  The ancient belief, going all the way back to the earliest writing from Uruk in the late 4th Millenium BC, was that the earth is surrounded by waters &quot;above&quot; the firmament - a thin dome to which the stars are attached - and waters &quot;below, i.e. the abyss&quot; from which guysers originate.  This is the view in the Bible, and there is a great Jewish Midrash from the early Common Era that describes the firmament as only a &quot;few fingers&quot; thick.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve taught about ID for a while in my Senior Seminar in Sociology class, and you can make an argument for either, but it falls more with option one.  Most ID folks are young earth creationists, although a handful (such as Behe) have an heir of scientific authority.  Behe seems to stay away from the timeline by stressing the &#8220;irreducibility&#8221; of biological phenomena such as flagella in bacteria, but also states outright a Christian perspective.  That said, ID normally requires belief in such mush as Flood Geology, a &#8220;theory&#8221; that claims that the earth was inundated by a global flood and all the world&#8217;s great features (exhibit A: Grand Canyon) were carved in a few days.  Another certainty to ID afficionados: that all life was created according to their &#8220;forms&#8221; and that evolution cannot lead to speciation, which of course would preclude number two above.  I&#8217;ve got to think that a number of deists and agnostics would pick number two on the basis of, &#8220;well, maybe.&#8221;</p>
<p>That said, the story that never gets told is how a sizable but still minority segment of the protestant population has now been christened int he media as the true &#8220;Christians&#8221; and get their views presented as the &#8220;Christian&#8221; message.  Not that the Catholic Church is the poster child for progressive, er, anything, but like many mainline protestant groups the Church does not find a problem with evolution, although I think they would favor the devine guided version &#8211; whatever that means.</p>
<p>PS &#8211; the mechanism for the &#8220;great flood:&#8221; a bursting of the portals of the sky, i.e., the Mediterranean firmament, and the fountains of the deep, or guysers.  The ancient belief, going all the way back to the earliest writing from Uruk in the late 4th Millenium BC, was that the earth is surrounded by waters &#8220;above&#8221; the firmament &#8211; a thin dome to which the stars are attached &#8211; and waters &#8220;below, i.e. the abyss&#8221; from which guysers originate.  This is the view in the Bible, and there is a great Jewish Midrash from the early Common Era that describes the firmament as only a &#8220;few fingers&#8221; thick.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Woodrowfan</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/comment-page-1/#comment-70</link>
		<dc:creator>Woodrowfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=107#comment-70</guid>
		<description>I saw number 3 as not acknowledging the existence of God and so saw my suggestion as being between 2 and 3. It places a heavier emphasis on foreknowledge than on hands-on guidance.  (If I do this, then in X billion years we&#039;ll get mankind. Cool!)   I agree my suggestion is  Deistic.  However, from what I&#039;ve seen of the ID crowd they tend to be between number 1 and 2.  Basically they are creationists, but think God took a long time to finish. (Mankind being like one of those home improvement projects that seem to take forever.).

To put it somewhat kiddingly, the YEC think God had everything he needed and got it done immediately and the IRs think he kept having to make trips to the cosmic Home Depot to get &#039;just one more thing&#039; to finish. (grin).   The more modern Christian position would be that God hired subcontractors and they took their own sweet time to finally finish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw number 3 as not acknowledging the existence of God and so saw my suggestion as being between 2 and 3. It places a heavier emphasis on foreknowledge than on hands-on guidance.  (If I do this, then in X billion years we&#8217;ll get mankind. Cool!)   I agree my suggestion is  Deistic.  However, from what I&#8217;ve seen of the ID crowd they tend to be between number 1 and 2.  Basically they are creationists, but think God took a long time to finish. (Mankind being like one of those home improvement projects that seem to take forever.).</p>
<p>To put it somewhat kiddingly, the YEC think God had everything he needed and got it done immediately and the IRs think he kept having to make trips to the cosmic Home Depot to get &#8216;just one more thing&#8217; to finish. (grin).   The more modern Christian position would be that God hired subcontractors and they took their own sweet time to finally finish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leo</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/comment-page-1/#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>Leo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=107#comment-69</guid>
		<description>Actually I think your variation as falling into the #3 category, unless I&#039;m misunderstanding your statement. It&#039;s essentially a Deistic position isn&#039;t it? A God the Creator but also a hands-off sort of God? &quot;...with guidance from God&quot; means to me that God was involved in the process of evolution, which seems to be synonymous with what Intelligent Designers believe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually I think your variation as falling into the #3 category, unless I&#8217;m misunderstanding your statement. It&#8217;s essentially a Deistic position isn&#8217;t it? A God the Creator but also a hands-off sort of God? &#8220;&#8230;with guidance from God&#8221; means to me that God was involved in the process of evolution, which seems to be synonymous with what Intelligent Designers believe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Woodrowfan</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/comment-page-1/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>Woodrowfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=107#comment-68</guid>
		<description>Well, Number 2 has a variation, &quot;that humans developed over millions of years but with God&#039;s foreknowledge that man would arise.&quot;  I suspect that some variation of #2 (foreknowledge or guidance)  is what most liberal Christians believe and it doesn&#039;t require that anything like creationism be taught in a Science class.  

But yeah, the degree of support for Creationism (Young Earth Creationism especially) is disturbing....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, Number 2 has a variation, &#8220;that humans developed over millions of years but with God&#8217;s foreknowledge that man would arise.&#8221;  I suspect that some variation of #2 (foreknowledge or guidance)  is what most liberal Christians believe and it doesn&#8217;t require that anything like creationism be taught in a Science class.  </p>
<p>But yeah, the degree of support for Creationism (Young Earth Creationism especially) is disturbing&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
