Skip to comments.
The New Convergence
Wired Magazine ^
| December 2002
| Gregg Easterbrook
Posted on 11/13/2002 5:27:59 PM PST by ckilmer
Edited on 06/29/2004 7:09:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
1
posted on
11/13/2002 5:27:59 PM PST
by
ckilmer
To: ckilmer
What about politics and science?
2
posted on
11/13/2002 6:00:19 PM PST
by
cornelis
To: *crevo_list
Hope springs eternal.
3
posted on
11/13/2002 6:04:42 PM PST
by
cornelis
To: ckilmer
Nietzsche: "God is dead."
God: "Nietzsche is dead.
Which statement is verifiable?
4
posted on
11/13/2002 6:58:10 PM PST
by
IronJack
To: ckilmer
The tide began to turn a decade later, however, when William Jennings Bryan began preaching against Darwinism. He was influenced by a 1923 book, The New Geology, which argued that Earth's apparently ancient age was an artifact created by God to test people's faith.Here is an interesting book review of a history on Young Earth creationism.
5
posted on
11/13/2002 7:13:48 PM PST
by
Dumb_Ox
To: ckilmer
And biologist Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, insists that "a lot of scientists really don't know what they are missing by not exploring their spiritual feelings."Feelings - yes, that about sums it up.
6
posted on
11/13/2002 10:25:37 PM PST
by
edsheppa
To: *crevo_list; AndrewC; f.Christian; gg188; gore3000; Heartlander; scripter; WhiteKnight; ...
Ping.
7
posted on
11/14/2002 7:56:08 AM PST
by
scripter
To: scripter
Espousing a theory known as intelligent design, molecular biologist Michael Behe and others are attempting to forge a synthesis. Often though inaccurately described as creationism lite, intelligent design admits that evolution operates under current conditions but emphasizes that Darwin is silent on how those conditions came to be. Strikingly inaccurate. This makes it sound as though ID is simply an attempt to answer the question of abiogenesis. But when many ID proponents start off with an a priori denial of macroevolution, it quite obviously goes way beyond that.
Beyond that, there's this, which is worth repeating:
The battle between evolutionary biology and faith isn't inevitable. As genome researcher Collins says, "I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God. Why couldn't God use the mechanism of evolution to create?"
Why, indeed...
To: scripter
Wired is often a pretty cool and surprisingly influential magazine.
9
posted on
11/14/2002 8:07:35 AM PST
by
Tribune7
To: Dumb_Ox
Ronald Numbers' book looks interesting. The review falters when Noll offers his own suggestions but is good up to that point. Thanks for the link.
10
posted on
11/14/2002 8:16:10 AM PST
by
Nebullis
To: general_re
Why couldn't God use the mechanism of evolution to create? God, being God could have used any method He wanted. The four "major camps" of young earth creation, ID, gradualism and punctuated equilibria disagree on the interpretation of the available evidence.
11
posted on
11/14/2002 8:17:57 AM PST
by
scripter
To: Condorman
I didn't include you in my ping list by accident. My list is now sorted so I can better add/remove folks.
12
posted on
11/14/2002 8:20:25 AM PST
by
scripter
To: scripter
The four "major camps" of young earth creation, ID, gradualism and punctuated equilibria disagree on the interpretation of the available evidence. And two of those camps, being theological in nature, have real troubles accounting for the available evidence. ;)
To: Dumb_Ox
Numbers traces a decent, though, maybe not exhaustive history of modern Creationism as a religious movement. Quoting Chesterton, Noll then posits the metaphysical claims of select scientists as the battleground where Creationists are active. In practical terms, evolution theory is not metaphysics. Noll is excusing the absurdity of the battle by Creationists over evolution using the (equally absurd) stances of a few atheists. However, Creationism and its running dog Intelligent Design has evolved into a movement that seeks to destroy the very nature of science.
14
posted on
11/14/2002 8:27:00 AM PST
by
Nebullis
To: IronJack
Which statement is verifiable?Which attribution is verifiable?
To: ckilmer
Physics, metephysics, consciousness, spirituality, etc: You need unified thinking to devise a unified theory; you need to include everything to devise a theory of everything.
16
posted on
11/14/2002 8:36:34 AM PST
by
Consort
To: Jimer
metephysics = metaphysics
17
posted on
11/14/2002 8:37:17 AM PST
by
Consort
To: scripter
Thanks for the heads up!
To: IronJack
Actually, neither are verifiable.
However, it is assuredly true and verifiable that Nietsche is in fact, dead.
19
posted on
11/14/2002 8:45:28 AM PST
by
The Man
To: Nebullis
Id has a long way to go to get promoted from running dog to lackey.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson