Ben Stein<\/a>.<\/p>\nTo most people it was perfectly obvious anyway. It certainly was to its supporters in pews. But it also came across in other more subtle ways, such as when a book like The Spiritual Brain<\/em> claimed to be an unbiased look at the evidence for the soul as traditional conceived, but paid little attention to any evidence (such as ghosts or memories of past lives) that would not fit well in a historic orthodox Christian worldview. My point is not that such evidence is strong or weak, but it certainly exists and would be of anyone merely doing scientific research on the soul or related areas. To set such evidence aside, when many have found it persuasive or at least intriguing, shows that there is indeed an ideological bias, and it isn\u2019t merely in favor of religion in general, but of a particular tradition understood in a particular way.<\/p>\nOn his blog Thoughts in a Haystack<\/em>, <\/em>John Pieret helpfully points out<\/a> that \u201cWell, yes \u2026 science does discriminate against ID \u2026 and phlogiston theory, geocentrism, and planetary crystal spheres.\u201d He also shares an article from an Arizona student that has been getting some attention recently. I\u2019ve been thinking lately that, while Philip Kitcher is in one sense right to define young-earth creationism and intelligent design as \u201cold science\u201d rather than \u201cnon-science\u201d, one needs to add that the attempt to revive an old, overturned and\/or discredited bit of science for ideological reasons, without evidence that justifies doing so, is <\/em>not only non-<\/em>science but anti<\/em>-science.<\/p>\nThose who appreciate irony will enjoy reading about Michael Behe\u2019s criticism of Ken Miller\u2019s theological<\/em> objections to Intelligent Design<\/a>. There are both scientific and theological objections, and Miller has been consistent in making both, and in keeping them distinct. Behe\u2019s objection is ironic because it is the proponents of ID who have argued for science to embrace non-materialist approaches, and who have now had their religious motivations made even more public. If you are going to try to incorporate God into your science, then you should not complain when your work meets religious objections in addition to all the many scientific ones!<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-2152784865671226439?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"