Replies

I am decidedly an "agnostic" when it comes to the precise mechanisms of speciation. I have no idea how "guided" natural selection is/was, nor the extent to which the process is responsible for the present range of diversity we see. I am certainly not a "young earth" advocate. I have posted that stuff here before, and am still trying to figure out my own cosmology. I am a theist who believes that God leave his "signature" in His creation, but don't find the material constructs that non-theists play with to be "threatening" at all. They sometimes have alot to show me. I really do try and be respectful when I can. Please view the next statement against that backdrop.

Dawkins is a dyspeptic asshole with an ideological axe to grind. He is a mirror image of the type of "creationist" he skewers. MY GOD is a man with such credentials so stupid that he doesn't realize that many "creationists" are convinced that "evolutionists" lie because they do the same thing that the creationists do -- commit to a philosophical position and then hammer your "facts" till they fit? Does he WANT to just give them fuel? He is someone with impeccable academic credentials but he is an idiot when it comes to the public forum. Mylanta would be cheaper, Richard.

I think I will become a Buddhist so I can believe in reincarnation. Carl Sagan lives in Dawkins.

Buddhism is far more intriguing. There are so many ambiguities and paradoxes to contemplate and it definitely isn't at odds with the empirical universe. With Christianity the only interesting questions are the free-will dilemma, the theodicy paradox, and the Trinity contradiction. Actually, those are pretty intriguing as well. I suppose I just got tired of thinking about them. Buddhism has the whole novelty factor thing going for it. =)