That’s the question at Wired. If there is no “super-evolutionary event” as a result of the Tokyo Olympics, is there anything that we can reasonably conclude? Could we conclude, for example, that natural selection is not necessarily the terrifying creative force that some have claimed?
This is the kind of thing she said: What about Avi Loeb’s claim that the interstellar object `Oumuamua was alien technology? Loeb has justified his speculation by pointing towards scientists who ponder multiverses and extra dimensions. He seems to think his argument is similar. But Loeb’s argument isn’t degenerative science. It’s just bad science. He jumped to conclusions from incomplete data.
Weinberg: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
Vox Popoli: Scientists, by and large, are relatively stupid. Even worse, they’re accustomed to being more or less unaccountable. They’re high-level midwits, for the most part, …
Of course, there are orthodoxies and then there are smelly orthodoxies. COVID-19 created a situation where many more people than otherwise have discovered a really smelly orthodoxy in science. Prediction: More people will start asking more questions.
Varadarajan: The World Health Organization is a particular offender: “We had a dozen Western scientists go to China in February and team up with a dozen Chinese scientists under the auspices of the WHO.” At a subsequent press conference they pronounced the lab-leak theory “extremely unlikely.” The organization also ignored Taiwanese cries for help with Covid-19 in January 2020.
Part of the problem is that everyone is dealing from the same deck. No one has “super” consciousness. That must make a difference in understanding.
The First Incompleteness Theorem means that the big materialists project is essentially already over. But it takes a long time to mop up.
I have recently posted a new video presentation on my YouTube channel. In the video I talk about some of the reasons why I think the debate over Intelligent Design and biological origins is of great significance. Aside from just being a fascinating area, it has many implications in several areas of life. This video, Read More…
Dr. Miller looks at Ian Barbour’s four models which explore the relationship between science and faith. Dr. Miller shows how each model offers a different answer to these important questions.
Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor was permitted the opening statement. Now here’s Papineau’s reply (partial transcript).
I (O’Leary for News) wouldn’t trust either of these people to run the transit system if I need to get to church on time.
Sadly, cancer isn’t racist. Nor is Alzheimer syndrome. They can’t be fought by rallies or civil disobedience, which we could all just do. Not just anyone who cares can be a science researcher. A war on math, for example, as “white supremacy” will simply prevent progress.
I have posted the second video in my two part book recommendation series on the YouTube channel. In the previous video I highlighted many books that argue for intelligent design. My view is that proponents of design should face the strongest criticisms possible, and not be afraid of doing so. In line with this philosophy, Read More…
In recent weeks, we have seen again and again how the acid of hyperskepticism has reduced our civilisation’s confidence in self-awareness much less understanding of the world and its roots. Even as Evolutionary Materialistic Scientism, Officialdom and their media promoters (and censors) seek to create a dominant narrative. So, how do we attack this issue? Read More…