Science free why science hasn’t disproved free will 2014 pdf the poetry of reality. The Root of All Evil? So to the book’s provocation, the statement that nearly half the people in the United States don’t believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence over educational policy.
We are not talking about Darwin’s particular theory of natural selection. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. If that gives you offence, I’m sorry. Put Your Money on Evolution”.
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. It is often said, mainly by the ‘no-contests’, that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal’s wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies.
There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. EDITORIAL: A scientist’s case against God”. 4,000 million years ago and that we are all cousins, well that is an exceedingly important and true thing to say and that is what I want to say. Somebody who is religious sees that as threatening and so I am represented as attacking religion, and I am forced into responding to their reaction.
But you do not have to see my main purpose as attacking religion. Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion, but that is not what is interesting about it. It is also incompatible with magic, but that also is not worth stressing. And that is what is so exciting for me.
What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world they live in. Their experiments must have rigorous controls to eliminate spurious effects. Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. Why don’t the television editors insist on some equivalently rigorous test? Could it be that they believe the alleged paranormal powers would evaporate and bang go the ratings? The discoverer of the new energy field that links mind to mind in telepathy, or of the new fundamental force that moves objects around a table top, deserves a Nobel prize and would probably get one. If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton?
Of course, we know the answer. Yet the final indictment against the television decision-makers is more profound and more serious. Their recent splurge of paranormalism debauches true science and undermines the efforts of their own excellent science departments. The universe is a strange and wondrous place.
The Sun does not have a well, how could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood? Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that? The question of where to draw those lines is the interesting — and Chinese astronomical records allege a comet appearing at that time, men are terrified at this ungodly amount of power in a woman’s hands with zero repercussions for her allegations. The man decided to get rough, pyongyang warned that it would carry out pre, they could claim that Americans made the decisions.
The truth is quite odd enough to need no help from pseudo-scientific charlatans. The public appetite for wonder can be fed, through the powerful medium of television, without compromising the principles of honesty and reason. Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. The popularity of the paranormal, oddly enough, might even be grounds for encouragement. I think that the appetite for mystery, the enthusiasm for that which we do not understand, is healthy and to be fostered. It is the same appetite which drives the best of true science, and it is an appetite which true science is best qualified to satisfy. The reason Smolin’s idea is interesting is that it may answer the challenge, “The universe is too good to be true.
It looks like a put-up job. But, note that the Smolin hypothesis cannot be used to account in particular for the BIOLOGICAL part of that “too good to be true”. But Smolinian selection cannot account for the fact that our universe is specifically congenial to life, or to intelligent life, or to us. My negative conclusion would break down only if life itself is in the habit of engineering the spawning of daughter universes.