Custom Search

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Salvo!: A real Christian science mag

One thing that struck me, while I was co-writing the recent neuro sci book, is the stunned materialism that has become a staple of popular magazine science writing. So, it is nice to be able to introduce Salvo, an alternative.

Salvo lifts up the gently undulating carpet of radical materialism and shows you what's underneath. Sometimes the swept-under stuff is spectacular (a lost diamond brooch here) and sometime it's compost (a mouse carcase over there). Sometimes it is frightening (venomous creatures scuttling in the night), and sometimes it is reassuring (most doomsdays predicted by the best authorities do not happen).

But Salvo is always enlightening.

Now, I need to be clear about this: Salvo is not your traditional Christian egghead mag that assures you that there is "no conflict between faith and science," in forty thousand words or slightly fewer.

Yeah? Whose faith? And what science? And can we get the skinny somewhere?

If, for example, you need to be told that there is absolutely no conflict between Darwinism and Christianity or between using human embryos for sun screen research and Christianity, well - look for another mag. Now.

The Salvo lineup deals with everything from stem cell research to global warming and bird flu, and yes - of course - the intelligent design controversy. Who could miss that? That was the first barking great chasm to be opened between the perennial human philosophy and modern materialism, of which Darwinism is the creation story.

What I love best about Salvo is that it bashes materialist science reporting. I almost missed the deadline for my most recent co-authored book, partly because I was splitting a gut laughing over materialist nonsense for much too long. (A hack myself, I couldn't resist.)

Finally, I said to myself, "O'Leary? Why laugh so? That schluck they write, is it really all THAT funny?" No, it isn't, actually. It's deeply misguided. I laugh because I see people damaged, but cannot do anything, and cannot think of another way to deal with the hurt.

So briefly: No. It's not true. Science has not discovered that you are a meat puppet or a bunch of chemicals running around in a bag or a 98% chimpanzee. The people who tell you that already believed it before they had learned any science. And they will believe it no matter what the evidence suggests.

Truth in advertising: I have an article in Salvo called "Reprogram," that addresses the failure (yes, failure) of evolutionary psychology, artificial intelligence, and primate studies to explain human nature, as they proposed to do.

Oh, ... what's that? You thought I had said "success"? I must have at least meant success, right? No. I did say "failure," and I meant failure. The chasm cannot be bridged.

Materialism is failing.

There, I said it. Just think of all the tenured faith-and-science academics who have made their careers out of making concessions to materialism. But, you know what? Materialism isn't true.

Salvois a good place to begin finding out why.
If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove ?

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.
Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Who links to me?