If I remember right, they were afraid that the printing press would disseminate crap (they were right) and corrupt peoples' minds.
Don't assume that all religous people are of this opinion toward science/technology, though. I'm a fairly fundamentalist Christian and cautiously pro-technology. I hold to Neil Postman's philosophy on technology: it's all in how you use it; it changes peoples' lives for good and ill, so neither fear nor hate it.
Religious technophobia is a shame; I don't really understand it. In spite of its prevalence, I can't find it in the Bible. The principle of man's inherent wickedness is probably a factor, but people will be wicked with or without technology.
True, but evolutionists change their theories too, in response to evidence. When Kerry does this, it's called "flip-flopping," but it's perfectly legit.
Slashdot Mirror
If I remember right, they were afraid that the printing press would disseminate crap (they were right) and corrupt peoples' minds.
Don't assume that all religous people are of this opinion toward science/technology, though. I'm a fairly fundamentalist Christian and cautiously pro-technology. I hold to Neil Postman's philosophy on technology: it's all in how you use it; it changes peoples' lives for good and ill, so neither fear nor hate it.
Religious technophobia is a shame; I don't really understand it. In spite of its prevalence, I can't find it in the Bible. The principle of man's inherent wickedness is probably a factor, but people will be wicked with or without technology.
True, but evolutionists change their theories too, in response to evidence. When Kerry does this, it's called "flip-flopping," but it's perfectly legit.
Vuletic makes some good arguments, and rebuts a lot of faulty creationist arguments. However, I don't think he disproves creationism. Here are my responses to the some of his arguments: Various biological structures (the human eye) is flawed. The human eye, and flightless birds, function well. There are various imperfections in structures do to post-creation changes (evolution). For example, some flightless birds have hollow bones because they used to be able to fly, but lost that ability (became too heavy). There are transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. Assuming a single designer, it isn't suprising to find forms that have aspects of two groups of animals. There isn't any smooth transition between reptiles and birds. My argument is weak, but Vuletic says there are multiple paths between reptiles and birds, which seems equally weak. From an article that he links to: Which exposes a general problem with "irreducible complexity" -- it is a "God of the Gaps" explanation. Each time we show that a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now "irreducibly complex". Any similarity to Zeno's Paradox is surely accidental. But that problem is inherent to evolution: you start with nothing or next to nothing in evolution. There will be a lot of points where you can't get from A to B just by piece-by-piece change. This being said, I'm still keeping an open mind, and continuing to look at the issue. I give preference to the Bible, because that has other bodies of evidence supporting it. Disclaimer: IANAB (biologist)