ChatterBank7 mins ago
Darwin's Doubt, Intelligent Design And Evolution.
Has anyone watched this film, an interview with Stephen Meyer?
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well, OK then.
Humankind could do well to be disabused of the morbid, materialistic and depressing view of the universe expounded by such acclaimed luminaries as R. Dawkins and Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg who in his 1977 book The First Three Minutes, in a now-famous passage, writes,
"It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning... It is hard to realize that this all [i.e., life on Earth] is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."
Dance on Shiva!
Humankind could do well to be disabused of the morbid, materialistic and depressing view of the universe expounded by such acclaimed luminaries as R. Dawkins and Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg who in his 1977 book The First Three Minutes, in a now-famous passage, writes,
"It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning... It is hard to realize that this all [i.e., life on Earth] is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."
Dance on Shiva!
/your specious referral to Meyer,Behe, Berlinski etc as 'cranks and axe-grinders(?)' /
Except of course I didn't...you jumped to that conclusion, can't think why. Actually now you mention it they too may be cranks and axe grinders.
Re. your mythical deity ... not when cranks and axe grinders are busy attempting to create illusions that are based on their baseless delusions.
Except of course I didn't...you jumped to that conclusion, can't think why. Actually now you mention it they too may be cranks and axe grinders.
Re. your mythical deity ... not when cranks and axe grinders are busy attempting to create illusions that are based on their baseless delusions.
@Khandro
//Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.//
If only they'd just stick to poking holes in theories, they might just have been listened to.
They didn't. They loaded themselves up with faith-based baggage and undermined the strengths of their own criticisms (of evo) by coming out with this ID clap-trap.
Somebody, somewhere, some time decided that evolution, alone, collapses the whole house of cards. There are how many hundred other chapters in the bible?
No, they fixate on the creation myth and invest literally billions in building whole education systems, up to and includig university level, to defend the faith.
And to wind up atheists and scientists, on the internet, in their spare time.
The first trolling I can remember (subtle link to another thread) was in a science forum I used to follow.
There was a lot of getting out the tape measure involved back then, too. (Argument from authority: a debater's ideas only carry as much weight as their list of qualifications or, if close to equal it's about how big or important one's job is or how old and experienced one is. All rather childish, ultimately.
//Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.//
If only they'd just stick to poking holes in theories, they might just have been listened to.
They didn't. They loaded themselves up with faith-based baggage and undermined the strengths of their own criticisms (of evo) by coming out with this ID clap-trap.
Somebody, somewhere, some time decided that evolution, alone, collapses the whole house of cards. There are how many hundred other chapters in the bible?
No, they fixate on the creation myth and invest literally billions in building whole education systems, up to and includig university level, to defend the faith.
And to wind up atheists and scientists, on the internet, in their spare time.
The first trolling I can remember (subtle link to another thread) was in a science forum I used to follow.
There was a lot of getting out the tape measure involved back then, too. (Argument from authority: a debater's ideas only carry as much weight as their list of qualifications or, if close to equal it's about how big or important one's job is or how old and experienced one is. All rather childish, ultimately.
To make it easy for you, Khandro: one of these illusions is morally repugnant. And it ain't the "materialistic neo-Darwinian" one.
Nagel, by the way, is quoted twice in the notes (half the book) in Sam Harris's excellent The End of Faith. I certainly recommend this book as a lucid demonstration of the harm inflicted on humanity by the illusions purveyed and promulgated by what Khandro would call "great religions", AND, by contrast, what benefits have been derived from modern science. Shiva the Destroyer of Illusion is more likely to be found in the laboratory than the temple.
And point and meaning in the cosmos? I suggest that any person of the slightest imagination, and the faintest concern for the planet he lives on, and the living things he shares it with, could find plenty of meaning and purposein his finite life without resort to fairy tales.
Nagel, by the way, is quoted twice in the notes (half the book) in Sam Harris's excellent The End of Faith. I certainly recommend this book as a lucid demonstration of the harm inflicted on humanity by the illusions purveyed and promulgated by what Khandro would call "great religions", AND, by contrast, what benefits have been derived from modern science. Shiva the Destroyer of Illusion is more likely to be found in the laboratory than the temple.
And point and meaning in the cosmos? I suggest that any person of the slightest imagination, and the faintest concern for the planet he lives on, and the living things he shares it with, could find plenty of meaning and purposein his finite life without resort to fairy tales.
@Khandro
//What constitutes a "scientist" anyway? Would a 2.2 university degree followed by a few years in a some gash job give sufficient validation for the title? It's not a matter of being simply a scientist but a good one, and it seems to me a good one is an open-minded one. //
What is a 'gash' job?
Who is this jibe aimed at, anyway? Is it anyone on this thread?
//What constitutes a "scientist" anyway? Would a 2.2 university degree followed by a few years in a some gash job give sufficient validation for the title? It's not a matter of being simply a scientist but a good one, and it seems to me a good one is an open-minded one. //
What is a 'gash' job?
Who is this jibe aimed at, anyway? Is it anyone on this thread?
Khandro, I believe you began making disparaging comments about professor Fletcher at 22:46 long before I belittled your 'cranks and axe grinders' so you cannot claim that my comment was the cause of your ire. Being snobby about universities may be a ploy that works amongst philosphers and artists but it doesn't cut much mustard in science where verifiable facts (from whomever) are mightier than wordplay.
v_e: //what benefits have been derived from modern science.// Some of course, but there is global warming, nuclear waste, environmental degradation, polluted air, water and soil. There are acidified oceans, melting polar ice, oceanic dead zones, dying coral reefs, vanishing species and much more, all of which are due in some measure to the downside of science and technology. The mantra that only science can save us from these perils rings hollow to many, since it was largely science and technology that bequeathed them in the first place.
Hypo; //Who is this jibe aimed at, anyway? Is it anyone on this thread?//
No. I have no knowledge of what anyone does or did on this thread.
You are not the only one not to get your questions answered. The statement relates to a question I posed earlier, in response to the assertion that a Professor at New York University of 75, with a distinguished career, educated at Harvard, Princeton and Oxford England, was not qualified to an opinion because he wasn't a 'scientist', I asked what is a scientist anyway, and would the person with those credentials I stated have a more valid opinion.
I'm still waiting too.
No. I have no knowledge of what anyone does or did on this thread.
You are not the only one not to get your questions answered. The statement relates to a question I posed earlier, in response to the assertion that a Professor at New York University of 75, with a distinguished career, educated at Harvard, Princeton and Oxford England, was not qualified to an opinion because he wasn't a 'scientist', I asked what is a scientist anyway, and would the person with those credentials I stated have a more valid opinion.
I'm still waiting too.
I still want to know what a 'gash job' is.
Beyond that, are you saying that a 2.2 degree fails to meet your exacting standards?
Please note that jomifl identified the problem as being the fact that Nagel is/was a lawyer, not a scientist.
No-one is questioning his intelligence. It is his knowledge and understanding of various science subjects which is at question.
Beyond that, are you saying that a 2.2 degree fails to meet your exacting standards?
Please note that jomifl identified the problem as being the fact that Nagel is/was a lawyer, not a scientist.
No-one is questioning his intelligence. It is his knowledge and understanding of various science subjects which is at question.
Hypo; A 2.2 isn't very good is it? still, it's better than a third I suppose, but it would still qualify someone to claim to be a 'scientist'.
The last scientist who was cognisant of everything there was to know about the science of the day was Isaac Newton, since then it's really been a matter of specialization; a rocket-scientist is not necessarily more qualified to speak with authority on the creation of the universe than an eminent philosopher/lawyer.
If you want to know what 'gash' means, you may have to visit Manchester.
The last scientist who was cognisant of everything there was to know about the science of the day was Isaac Newton, since then it's really been a matter of specialization; a rocket-scientist is not necessarily more qualified to speak with authority on the creation of the universe than an eminent philosopher/lawyer.
If you want to know what 'gash' means, you may have to visit Manchester.
//Hypo; A 2.2 isn't very good is it? still, it's better than a third I suppose, but it would still qualify someone to claim to be a 'scientist'. //
Who, in this thread, is claiming to be a scientist? (jim360 is the only practising scientific researcher on AB who I can name).
Manchester is 300 miles away. I have no intentions of visiting, solely to find out what a slang word means. Kindly save me the trouble and answer the question.
Who, in this thread, is claiming to be a scientist? (jim360 is the only practising scientific researcher on AB who I can name).
Manchester is 300 miles away. I have no intentions of visiting, solely to find out what a slang word means. Kindly save me the trouble and answer the question.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
The No.1 Swivel-Eyed-Loon Wants To Take...
News15 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
News19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.