Skip to main content

View Diary: Book Review: Unscientific America (351 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If (4+ / 0-)

    you're looking for a useful comparison between faith and science, I 'believe,' for lack of a better word, that there is life elsewhere in the universe and that some of it is probably intelligent. Outside of the it-happened-here-so-it-could-happen-there style of reasoning there's zero empirical evidence for that. I might write a post parsing the differences and highlighting the similarities between that view and religious belief. What do you think?

    •  Drake Equation? Maybe there is life... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DarkSyde, Four of Nine, fernan47

      elsewhere.  And then you have to define what life is.  Viruses are neither dead nor alive, they look like tiny lunar landing modules.  Where do they come from?  Space.  They are starry messengers coming in from comets.  What's that about?  Is our universe just ONE BIG OVUM being baraged by a gadzillion SPERM-LIKE VIRUSES innoculating our universe.  

      Is there a universe within each ovum being baraged by sperm?  And are there an untold number of lives being lived in nano-nano-nano seconds.

      Is life just like those nesting Russion dolls, with one universe encapsulating another with different maths and physics for each size?  Who can tell?

      You hve to define life first.

      "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

      by Aidos on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 06:54:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  RE life elsewhere ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DarkSyde, fernan47

      one can do a statistal analysis and provide probabilities which support (or undercut) such an "I believe" statement. But, agreed, there is "belief" here, at some point, rather than repeatable knowledge.

    •  Define life. That's unanswered. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ricochet, fernan47

      First we have to agree on what defines life.  There's disagreement.  Stanley Miller's experiment has not led cell biologist to creating a cell, agreed to be the basic unit of life.  They can't even create a micelle which is an inanimate cell (lacks DNA or RNA) but at least has an inside and an outside.

      I submit that the more you know about Science, the more evidence you see of a creator, not less.  :)  Do I agree with the fundies.  Heck no!  But then I don't practice religion as an F student either.  I'm an A+ student of religion.  I don't have much in common with the common religious person other than I respect religion.

      "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

      by Aidos on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 07:05:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's simply not true (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        First, micelles form spontaneously all the time! It's one of the classic examples of self-organizing structure. Hell, spontaneous micelle formation is basically why soap works.

        Perhaps you meant vesicles, which have a double-layered membrane, resulting in an aqueous internal environment (like a cell). But there are a number of observed mechanisms for micelle to vesicle transformation, including the one catalyzed by montmorillonite clay. This clay just happens to catalyze RNA polymerization, as well.

        While there are still a huge number of open questions regarding the specific details in the path to origin of cells, the field is much further along than you might imagine. The current (and likely last) major theoretical debate is currently whether significant metabolism existed prior to replicating, catalytic polymers.

        Second, it has been my experience that the more one actually knows about science, the less likely they are to believe in a creator. And to back that up, how about this 1998 study ( of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where 7% has a personal belief in god and more than 70% has a personal disbelief in god. And another ~20% had expressed doubt or agnosticism.

        Some scientists believe in god. The two ideas are not necessarily in conflict, but it is simply undeniable that most scientists (and particularly, the most prominent of them) rather tend to not believe in a creator.

        The two main points of your comment are demonstrably false, and quite frankly, this casts doubt on anything you say, in my opinion.

        This website is dedicated to electing a more progressive government. I'm in that caucus, and I welcome liberal religious members here, but don't try to pretend that scientists back your ID religion. Most scientists find that utterly contemptible. The biggest split among scientists is those that say it is stupid and those that just think it's stupid.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site