(no subject)

( I found that macro of the cat in the suitcase )

(no subject)

I'm not quite sure why, at some point, I grabbed a Journal of Religion review of a book called The Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism, by Robert T. Pennock, a Quaker. According to the review, "moral grounds" are the reason that Creationists continue to oppose evolution: "If we and other primates descend from a common ancestor, and if we can look to primate communication for examples of altruism, then moral behaviour may not be a key feature differentiating humans from other animals." That's a very interesting point; I've seen it argued in New Scientist that Creationism was originally a response to social Darwinism, which was conflated with actual Darwinism, ie science. But Creationists now equate science with every social ill; they "polarize science and religion unnecessarily", as both Pennock and the review argue.