Sagan played a key role in establishing that the “science” of popular media is mostly bunk directed at supporting atheism and that any evidence-based assessment of life in our cosmos is the province of “religion.”
In a non-Darwin world, would media releases discussing this stuff keep using the term “weird?” Why is it weird?
Really! But banana palms still don’t grow in Toronto.
ID 101/Foundations, 6: Introducing and explaining the cosmological design inference on fine tuning, with onward reference links (including on Stenger’s attempted rebuttals)
A fine tuning and multiverse advocate, Martin J. Rees, today won the 2011 Templeton Prize. The astrophysicist with no religion won the Prize originally “for Progress in Religion.” The 2011 Templeton Prize was announced today. LONDON, APRIL 6 – Martin J. Rees, a theoretical astrophysicist whose profound insights on the cosmos have provoked vital questions […]
Well, the supernatural may be “outside the scope of science,” but universes whose existence is not demonstrated, which are imagined principally to get out of a jam with the evidence from this universe, are reasonably doubted, despite thought experiments. The tentative tone here is well justified. It should be used more often.
In a recent Washington Times article, written by the Discovery Institute’s polymath Bruce Gordon, Gordon discusses the soundness of Stephen Hawking’s argument made recently which states that the universe could have been brought into existence merely by the laws of nature. Stephen Hawking‘s new book, “The Grand Design,” co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, contends that God […]