There are two threads that run through our Anointed authorities. The first is an appealing “Christianizing” of the ideas. David Barton “Christianizes” American history; Ken Ham “Christianizes” the science of our origins; James Dobson “Christianizes” social science, including the definition of the family. The “Christianizing” of these ideas, by default, undermines the credibility of secular ideas that might challenge the positions promoted by the Anointed leaders. The second thread is old-fashioned American anti-intellectual populism. Barton, Ham, Dobson, and other Anointed leaders tend to make no effort to engage the fields they claim to represent. Barton never subjects his claims about American history to peer review in a journal. Ken Ham and James Dobson do no scientific research. In the secular world ideas get vetted in the academy through peer review in technical journals; then they appear in serious but more popular outlets; and then finally they might get discussed on the radio. The ideas of the Anointed cut out all these middlemen and appear immediately on the radio or television.
"our tendency to detect intelligent agents when none are actually present"
I think that HADD is crap. If anything, our tendency as humans is to fail to give the benefit of the doubt to other humans let alone other species as far as intelligence and equality. Mythology is not the result of mistaking inanimate objects for spiritual entities, rather it is the natural function of the human psyche to express superlative qualities as personified characters. It is a playful, fictive process which is interpreted in a variety of ways, ranging from simple entertainment to social drama to sacred revelation and has nothing whatsoever to do with survival or evolutionary biology.
Obviously whatever we have in the way of signifying sentience is present in other life forms as well - not as an independent phenomenon but as an aspect of being a living organism as opposed to a dead one.
Mythology is not the result of mistaking inanimate objects for spiritual entities, rather it is the natural function of the human psyche to express superlative qualities as personified characters. It is a playful, fictive process which is interpreted in a variety of ways, ranging from simple entertainment to social drama to sacred revelation and has nothing whatsoever to do with survival or evolutionary biology.
Oh? I suppose you have some other hypothesis or data to present? ”Natural function of the human psyche”? Why does it have that function? ”Playful fictive process”…that means nothing and explains less. Everything about human physiology and psychology has something in principle to do with evolution. We are not privileged to have received some of our qualities by providence or magic rather than evolution like everything else.
Listen my friend. I have tried before to get you to realize that you speak about science and physics in a way that may make you appear intelligent to those unfamiliar with the subjects, but it is obvious to those with formal schooling that your knowledge is superficial at best. Your pronouncements are based on wish-thinking and fuzzy logic.