S/he is arguing, I think, (1) that if it were religious people seeing religious images, rather than scientific people seeing scientific images, then everyone would just say "these people are crazy"; (2) that what leads some people to see brain parts in religious artwork is "fundamentalist atheism", and (3) that there's some sort of equivalence between "actual human brains could have arisen by a natural process taking billions of years and a whole planet full of living things" and "an image of a brain in an artwork, even if accurate, could be mere coincidence", on the grounds that both of them can be caricatured as "brains could arise by chance".
I think #1 is probably true, #2 is idiotic, and #3 is idiotic. (Though I'd agree that believers in evolution -- and believers in Christian creationism, and believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and everyone else -- should probably think that these alleged brain pictures in the Sistine Chapel could just be coincidence.)
Problem with that comparison (seeing Virgin Mary in toast = seeing brain in painting) is only that Michelangelo’s paintings are most definitely a product of intelligent design – no surprise there.
If those who see Virgin Mary in a toast would claim that the toaster manufacturer made the toaster so that Virgin Mary would be burnt into toasts I would have no problem with that. That would be a testable hypothesis. It’s just that they don’t. They claim a miracle happened and no amount of evidence could convince them that isn’t the case.
>If those who see Virgin Mary in a toast would claim that the toaster manufacturer made the toaster so that Virgin Mary would be burnt into toasts I would have no problem with that. That would be a testable hypothesis. It’s just that they don’t.
I guess in those terms a hypothesis could be that the universe is deterministic in some sense and that the image of the Virgin Mary was effectively programmed into the initial state so as to emerge on that piece of toast. Untestable fo' sure.
I was trying my best to temper the language to ensure that it was clear I was being a bit flippant/tongue in cheek whilst also presenting a genuine first response.
Atheism? Well the Creation of Adam images have been presented in threads by atheists as a demonstration that Michelangelo was atheist and presenting the notion that God was a creation within the mind of man; and that this is self evident when the likeness of the brain is seen in the image.
Creationism? You bought that up, perhaps you can tell me.
Interesting, you must be exposed to a strange variety of creationism that I've never encountered. The creationists I have encountered are always willing to ascribe miracles and motivations to god to explain away any evidence that is contrary to their belief - making falsification impossible.
The two have never been different in any meaningful way by my experience here in Nebraska. ID is just a trojan horse built by creationists to try to get creationism into the schools.
Edit, FWIW: turns out a court agrees: "...The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated..."
What’s atheism got to do with this? What’s creationism got to do with this?