Bentov, in particular, was an interesting guy. He lived here in the Boston area, in Wayland, next to Framingham, where I grew up, although I never met him. He was actually one of the seminal figures in the physics/Asian philosophy/matter and consciousness genre, but he died very early on, in a big air crash at O’Hare in the late seventies. The interesting thing about him was that whereas Capra and Zukav drew upon Chinese philosophy, Bentov’s model was Indian metaphysics. If he had lived, I think the genre might have taken a different turn and might be more respectable today.

The thought that any ancient philosophy has some deep insights into the nature of the universe is appealing to think about, but how is it any different from a resurrected leader of sheep herders being the savior of the universe from invisible evil?

But it doesn’t matter because the harmonious middle road loving media fawns the most over those that find a way to explain the soul with quantum physics (or whatever) no matter how much it doesn’t make sense.

There were a few guys in the mid-to-late seventies, at the tail end of the counter-culture, who began to propose an interface between contemporary physics and Asian metaphysics – Gary Zukav, Fritjof Capra, Itzhak Bentov. Yes, they’ve been criticized for drawing unwarranted conclusions, but they were just beginning to explore and it was all very preliminary. I think they might have been on to something, but, unfortunately, people like Deepak Chopra came along soon afterward and made the whole thing seem ridiculous. They just dragged it all down and incorporated it into the lunacy that is the New Age subculture. No one in that arena has had any credibility since.

Yes, scientists should be bolder and denounce creationism more vigorously.

I think there are quite a few who do. But most just don’t have a platform by which to make any appreciable amount of noise. And they’re too busy doing actual science.

But it doesn’t matter because the harmonious middle road loving media fawns the most over those that find a way to explain the soul with quantum physics (or whatever) no matter how much it doesn’t make sense.

There was once a time when the media loved Carl Sagan, who was unabashedly atheist/agnostic, yet still warm and fuzzy. He was one in a million…

Yes, scientists should be bolder and denounce creationism more vigorously.

As far as the debate goes, I assume you are referring the the incident above with DFGH. The “debate”, such as it was, is not for his benefit. There are actually a lot of people out there who are either questioning the creationist line they’ve been fed, or they’re inclined to believe the science, but they’ve been confused by all of the creationist lies. Debunking the claims of creationist trolls who drop by here is to show those who are confused that there is no substance to the creationist claims.

This creationist stuff makes me embarrassed to be human. I am considering de- volving.

I know we need to counter creationism, but isn’t there a danger in engaging in debate with these people that we give them a credibility that they don’t deserve?

Would it be unreasonable to end the debate and encourage science to stand up more boldly and denounce this idiocy for what it is?

I’m sure I don’t know what’s best to do.

Otherwise, teh fundies have been PWND and they know it.

You atheists like to joke about how we christians cover our eyes and ears when presented evidence of evolution. Just what evidence is there exactly?

dfgh, you ask what evidence there is exactly for evolution. Is there some biological evidence that we have that points to evolution? No. Is it a lot of biological evidence that we have that points to evolution? No. Is it most of the evidence that we have that points to evolution? No.

In fact, every single bit of evidence that we have about biology points to evolution. Every. Single. Bit. Not most — all.

Do you know how many pieces of evidence it would take to disprove evolution? Evidence. Not questions, not doubts, not conjecture or guesses, not claims easily debunked, not gaps of knowledge, but evidence. Evidence that disproves evolution. A million pieces? Ten million, 100 million? No. Just one. One. Find one piece of evidence that disproves evolution and you will throw the whole of biology – of all of science, in fact — into disarray. Just one little bit.

And yet no one has been able to do so. Because evolution is real.

You atheists like to joke about how we christians cover our eyes and ears when presented evidence of evolution. Just what evidence is there exactly?

Thank you for proving your first sentence with your second!

The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn’t be called the “theory” of evolution).

It is both a fact and a theory. The fact is that evolution occurred. All of the data backs that up. The theory of evolution is the model that scientists have developed that best explains the data. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith.

Faith is not needed. We have facts. We have data. We have observations. Reality is on our side.

And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise

Of course it is. That premise is the a priori requirement of intelligent design creationism. It’s religion by definition. It’s also not how you do science. You don’t come to a conclusion first and then figure out how you’re going to make the data fit.

it’s based upon empirical observation and logic.

No it’s not. At least not yet. ID creationists have yet to publish anything in peer-reviewed journals that support a designer as a credible explanation.

BURN!!!

KAOPECTATE!!!

Boy, that was fun! I can spout off non-sequiturs too!

If you find that’s an ongoing problem, you may actually be suffering from Tourette’s syndrome. Please seek treatment.