Could one mention that there are researchers of the religious texts like the Old and New Testaments, the Torah, the Quran and others who have spent a great many efforts analyzing these texts and the historical circumstances that led to their appearance. These scholars of religion have looked the evidence from authors who lived in and artifacts made in the time of appearance of these texts. They have analyzed the historical and philosophical backgrounds of these texts and have arrived at well founded views on the historical contexts that surrounded and led to the appearance of these texts. The views held by many of these researchers of religion is similarly neglected by the religious leaderships be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim, just like at the present time the arguments coming from microbiology against Neo-Darwinism are still ignored, or even suppressed, by their opponents. When some of these videos contain 98 % brilliant and 2 % religious mumbo jumbo, could it partly be because they used 98 % of the exerts in microbiology spend 98 % of their time getting deep into what they know something about - microbiology? Perhaps one could provide some links, comments or ideas that on the one hand acknowledges that there are a few lines of mumbo jumbo, but that the views expounded by some of the scholars of microbiology might become more supported by the current available evidence, if they had the time and the willingness to consider the research and conclusions presented in link, link and link. Another possibility is to just acknowledge the 2 % but to add, that this does not detract from the brilliance of the insights in the 98 %. Such an approach might even provide a way out for those Neo-Darwinists, for whom the 2 % mumbo jumbo overshadows their reasoning to the point that they take this as confirmation the other 98 % are like these 2 %.
That said, I think it is difficult, at least so far I have not found a solution, when reposting, tweeting or FB sharing 98/2 material to comment on the 2 %. It is a bit like having to post "viewer discretion is advised". After all the 2 % is not adult content, it is often the version of religion offered from kindergarten and up.
Perhaps one needs some articles that address this 2 % issue, giving a few examples of what they say, what we think is erroneous in their statements and where we think it might be worthwhile looking for richer understanding not only of the origins of the religious views, but also of the workings of the mind and intelligence. I know Mandatory Intellectomy article Darwinism, Creationism... How About Neither? -- Sott.net Some has been mentioned in the shows of Mind Matters, articles on Sott and books by Laura.
This reflection of the 98/2 issue led me to image of the workings of the two stoke engine, used in some old cars, boats, motor bikes, garden and forestry equipment ...
In a two stroke engine not only are their two strokes, but there is also a mix (incidentally) of around 98 % petrol and approximately two % oil. Unlike in a typical four stroke petrol engine, it is not sufficient to pour in pure petrol; one also needs 2 % oil for smooth going and in order to lubricate the pistons going up and down in the combustion chamber. This analogy is only partially useful in the present context. My point is not to say that there should be 2 % mumbo jumbo in the ID articles and videos under discussion, although some ID proponents might think so, but that one might need to address these 2 % in sufficient detail to avoid being misunderstood and in order to achieve an overall more powerful impact.
If you can present a reasonable "third option", I think a lot of young people would be able to get on board with it - before their minds have had the chance to harden into the shape of true believer in either Darwin or "Jesus wrote my DNA". But even that might be wishful thinking.
.
. Some of the designs are just so out there I think whoever came up with them was just making them for a laugh.
