Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
You can’t say it isn’t entertaining….right up to the point where they want to teach this as science.
That’s right. It’s funny until someone loses an irreducibly-complex eye đ
I think this is what happens when a country drastically underfunds education for the better part of a century. The world is a scary place, and the undereducated must have some sort of explanation for things that scare the hell out of them. Evolution requires embracing the idea of death as an integral part of the system, something that some people seem unwilling to do. An NWO would seem like a much better idea.
I don’t agree that only the undereducated have problems in accepting death as part of the system. Most people I know — educated or not đ — believe in some form of creation by Intelligent Design.
Hank, would you consider people that believe in a flat earth to be ignorant? Most scientistis that accept the validity of evolution consider people that believe in “intelligent design” to be in the same category as flat earthers.
Thomas,
You are assuming a false dichotomy. Many (most? the vast majority?) people who see “intelligent design” also accept evolution. We accept mainstream science but we look at it and see the hand of God.
Unless you open your eyes and ears, you’ll miss it — MANY scientists, including those at the very top of their field, believe in something like intelligent design. It seems like more and more are standing up to the bullies-with-pocket-protectors and describing how they really believe.
In the last month alone, I’ve heard two Nobel prize winners mention it in separate interviews.
Even the big daddy, Albert Einstein, himself talked about it fairly often:
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
“I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.”
“God is subtle but he is not malicious.”
…and maybe my favorite:
“There are two ways to live your life – one is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle.”
I got these from http://www.heartquotes.net/Einstein.html but they are all over the net. It’s no secret.
Now please don’t tell me you think Albert Einstein was dumb like a flat-earther because he could see Gods’ fingerprints on the universe!
> You are assuming a false dichotomy. Many (most? the vast
> majority?) people who see âintelligent designâ also accept
> evolution.
Bullshit. I would go so far as to say that 99.999% of the people that accept evolution do not accept âintelligentâ design. Why? The ideas are in contradiction to themselves. I do not consider the âlight switchâ theory that some uber-being flicked a switch and made the universe to be the same as the âintelligentâ design theories bandied about the Internet. In fact, this, in and of itself, is the problem. *Which* âintelligentâ design theory are we talking about?
BTW, you are utterly wrong about Einstein.
or how about:
or
BTW, all three of those quotes are by Albert Einstein were it not already obvious.
>> Bullshit. I would go so far as to say that 99.999% of the people that accept evolution do not accept âintelligentâ design.
You have a link for that? Guys who believe in empiricism shouldn’t make up statistics! đ
In my observation, lots of scientists believe in some sort of spiritual reality (often called God) and see evidence in their research. This is especially true for “broad view” scientists (as opposed to the lab-type workers or junior college profs.).
My point was the reverse, anyway. Many of we who believe in intelligent design also believe in evolution. Many would say that evolution is an indicator of intelligent design.
But mostly I’m saying that you are making a false distinction when you say the two are incompatible.
In my observation, lots of the best and brightest in the scientific world belive in both.
Why are you so vested in the (false) notion that evolution/science and spirituality must be incompatible? Just because you don’t perceive the spiritual world doesn’t mean you have to be hostile towards those who do.
Hank
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. A top scientists who also sees the spiritual in his work:
“Templeton Prize Winner Blends Science and Religion”
He’s a Nobel laureate, too, by the way.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4529310
But I suppose you’d say he is one of the .001% but I say that he is part of a much larger group of scientists who you are over-looking because your bias is skewing your observation.
Hank
>> Bullshit. I would go so far as to say that 99.999% of the
>> people that accept evolution do not accept âintelligentâ design.
>>You have a link for that? Guys who believe in
>>empiricism shouldnât make up statistics! ;-
Ok. First, you have to specify what you mean by âintelligentâ design. Clearly your view does not coincide with the numerous other variations I have seen. So, before any kind of analysis can continue, please feel free to layout the âintelligentâ design hypotheses and the evidence to support it. With that, we can interview a sampling of scientists to get their reaction.
> In my observation, lots of scientists believe in some sort
> of spiritual reality (often called God) and see evidence in
> their research. This is especially true for âbroad viewâ
> scientists (as opposed to the lab-type workers or junior
> college profs.).
You are proving my point. That is NOT the same thing as âintelligentâ design! Spirituality does not necessarily imply âintelligentâ design.
> My point was the reverse, anyway. Many of we who believe in
> intelligent design also believe in evolution.
You do realize that is a *vastly* different statement.
>Many would say that evolution is an indicator of intelligent design.
âŚOnly those that believe in âintelligentâ design in the first place.
> Why are you so vested in the (false) notion that
> evolution/science and spirituality must be incompatible?
> Just because you donât perceive the spiritual world doesnât
> mean you have to be hostile towards those who do.
Iâm vested in the notion that the scientific method is by far the most accurate (albeit not perfect) way to find truth. Iâm only âhostileâ when people try to pass off faith-based notions like âintelligentâ design as science. I have absolutely no problem with people believing in âintelligentâ design as long as they accept that it is not science. Furthermore, Iâm not suggesting that spirituality and science are incompatible notions. I am, however, suggesting that they are incompatible when discussing natural phenomena.