Discovered this new creationist book. Check out the description:
"We have to face it, science has failed. Scientific investigation does not and cannot explain how the universe and all that is in it came into existence. And yet the testimony of prophets, poets, and philosophers seem to be in agreement that everything was created by a God much like the one described in the Bible. The testimonies of science, mythology, and Jesus himself are combined in one book to present to us the truth about The World That Then Was. The debate is finally put to rest as all sources are considered to prove that the Biblical Creation Account is the one true story of our existence."
From The World that then Was by Bill Seng (2013).
Science failed, he says while typing his self-published book on his laptop and uploading it to Amazon all using science.
"I think somehow this is a profound statement, just not in the way he meant it."
In what way do you see it as a profound statement?
History shows how difficult it's been for humanity to think logically, outside the box, and adapt/conclude accordingly to gray areas. We want black & white answers better than gray answers, and better than no answers.
Similarly, it's difficult for a lot of people to weigh inconclusive evidence, and think in terms of likelihood or probability. Technology (per the anthropological definition) is the result of simple science, the kind we can actually communicate (say) by word of mouth, or face-to-face demonstration. On the other hand, modern technology is based more on the kind of science that requires months to years of training to really comprehend. It also takes (imo) special skill and practice to get the feel of who or what kind of expert one can trust before becoming expert ourselves.
I imagine I'll be able to explain this more succinctly later, but I'll give an example here. For uneducated people, it's a lot easier to "see" a Jesus image on a slice of toast than it is to realize that random shit can just happen to look non-random because of probabilities. Astrology is another example of non-scientific people "seeing" connections between shit someone's made up, and their own reality.
In tribal times, there was no time to contemplate or complicate ideas or concepts. We just lived from day-to-day, surviving, and if the tribe hunts or makes tools a certain way, it's probably the best way (altho it wouldn't totally exclude innovation). But in modern times, look how easily we mis-handle supposed new discoveries, like cold fusion, or the possibility of arsenic-based life forms on earth.
Here is the claim of arsenic-based life, no less from a "trustworthy" source such as NASA. But it's not really a new form of life discovered, after all. It's just life that can tolerate arsenic better than other life.
So if I can boil this down better, it might go something like this. I think a statement about believing in something when "seeing it with our own eyes" gives people a profound excuse to ignore evidence found and presented by a reasonable majority of truly expert sources. It sounds to me like this author knows how to take advantage of people's gullibility, by appealing to their most shallow reasoning abilities. And (imo) people aren't shallow because they're stupid or idiots, but shallow because human beings evolved more quickly with their ability to make quick (even if sometimes erroneous) conclusions. Humans did not evolve in an optimal way to stop, sit down and think about something and discussing it, before moving on to the next urgent, life-critical behavior. Our species did not evolve to become optimal scientists, and it looks to me like this author is proving it in his own, anti-scientific way.
FYI here is an article I wrote a few years back on the arsenic based life discovery.
That's pretty similar to what I remember, Reg. My comment that technology was just applied science was not well received.
Technology advances whereas Science keeps changing it mind.
Dave, I remember reading your comment, and I somehow didn't get its profundity until now. (I hope I'm not over-using that word.)
I'm feeling analogousy (or simile-y or metaphorically or something) creative right now:
Technology advances when Science intentionally or accidentally illuminates new pathways.
The creationist said it in such a way that it sounded profound, as if it was special knowledge gained from some insight he had rather than a lack of understanding of Science. It is a good example of what Dan Dennett calls a "Deepity".
Would that be a Deepity Dawgma?
Yep indeed and when you hear one it's time to do this :-)
Actually momentarily I was braced to be Rickrolled, but then I realised you'd never do that to me.
Gimme a sec to get my debate skillz to the same level:
...seem to be in agreement that everything was created by a God
Nuh uh. Nature did it.
Dwelp, I guess science is over, then. Too bad. Fun while it lasted. I suppose I better go down to my local witchdoctor and see if he can get me instant access to the world's information for cheaper than my current Internet connection.
I'm just gonna drop this right here.