You're saying "willfully unintelligent" as if he's explicitly trying not to be intelligent. But that's the opposite of what's going on. He's examined the science and he sees problems with it. He's heard the counter-arguments, and he isn't convinced, because of what he sees as a lack of evidence.
This is the same kind of fundamental misunderstanding that separates (for example) a white supremacist from one who is not. The general idea is that the former is refusing to reason, examine, or use logic. But if you talk to a white supremacist or neo-Nazi at length, you find that they have nuanced, complex, logical explanations for their beliefs. They may be wildly inaccurate, but that isn't to say they didn't put thought into it. Not only that, but their positions are bolstered by the fact that there's basically no way to completely disprove them, because it would require observing nature over millennia, or having records we just don't have.
Calling them willfully unintelligent not only misunderstands their reasoning, but it questions their motives. It's not just a false observation, it's an accusation. This moves the conversation from "I don't think you're right" to "you're a bad person". And I think that's at the core of how political and ideological discourse is so rotten today.
Sigh. You went to effort to make your case but I don't buy it (and resent your conclusion of effectively blaming me for the failure of discourse today).
> You're saying "willfully unintelligent" as if he's explicitly trying not to be intelligent
No, I did not. He has access to the science and he also has a religious tract. He chooses to treat that religious tract as an inerrant literal depiction of the creation of the world.
Those are competing thoughts and "willfully" means that he made a choice.
And "willfully" is kind of tricky here, because it would not surprise me if he was raised in a Christian household that effectively brainwashed him into these beliefs.
>And I think that's at the core of how political and ideological discourse is so rotten today.
And I disagree. I think a huge part of the problem is religious fundamentalism and a rejection of science.
Edit: oh, and neo-nazis and white supremacist are bad people m'kay?
> Those are competing thoughts and "willfully" means that he made a choice.
According to the article, Mims came to his conclusions after scientific study, not from growing up with a bible and deciding to just go with what he learned first. He looked at fossil records (among other things) and decided they weren't good enough to explain things without some extra force, and "chose" an intelligent designer as that force.
> it would not surprise me if he was raised in a Christian household that effectively brainwashed him into these beliefs.
He's a Texan, so I'm sure he was raised around Christianity, but he was actually an evolutionist before he became a science writer.
> I think a huge part of the problem is religious fundamentalism and a rejection of science.
In this case, science brought him to God. It would be funny if the public response and effect on his career wasn't so sad.
Thank you for the civil dialog in what could be a very contention discussion.
If Mims was being truly scientific about the Bible then that would include looking for finding falsifiability in the literal truths of the Bible. (Clearly I'm not religious and my take on that book is that it is, at best, a collection of inspirational stories -- not documented fact).
I respect each individual's right to have their own relationship with "God", including believing in things that I think are, dare I say it, stupid.
Scientific American did the wrong thing to fire him, but instead should have had a very clear firewall to ensure that they respected his personal beliefs and would not be associated with them.
One can be a Christian and not be a creationist -- that's a choice.