Comments on: A War of Books Ensues at Chapters

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:47:12 +0000

Ha! At the Granville & Broadway Chapters last weekend, I spotted a copy of a creationist book called “40 Days and 40 Nights” half obscuring an Origin of Species they had shelved in the Reference section.

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:37:49 +0000

It may “appeal to the laypeople’s understanding” but it does imply that the topic of these books are valid scientific queries, which is obviously not the case. I also would agree that the empirical and the theological answer different questions but topics such as String Theory hardly seem a building blockish.

By: Brenda

Brenda — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:12:24 +0000

Thanks for answering my question!
As for the core logical question you posed, you almost answered it yourself… the omniscient and omnipotent God is also believed to be “omnitemporal,” to be uncreated and be the original designer for everything, including time itself.
And of course, this isn’t empirical, falsifiable science, it’s theology, philosophy… and they do address different questions. Big questions vs. building block questions, if I may.
But to go back to the bookstore scenario, they don’t sort to be technically correct, but obviously to appeal to laypeople’s understanding of the topic… something like self-help books in the psychology setion.

By: Dave Semeniuk

Dave Semeniuk — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:55:14 +0000

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophical solution to a philosophical problem (namely, the existence of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnitemporal god – i.e. God). The modern rendition of Intelligent design is in fact an old argument, and can be summed up in the following premises:

-Our world is too complex, or too ordered, or too “blah” to have occurred on its own (or randomly, or by accident, or whatever word you want to use)
-therefore, it simply had to be created by an omnipotent and omniscient being
-that omnipotent and omniscient being is God
-as such, God must exist, because the world exists the way it does

First off, this argument has a core logical problem, namely the origin of the omnipotent and omniscient being (i.e. what designed that being? another designer? well, what designed it – this leads to an infinite regress and we’re stuffed).

Now, to answer, “Is anything contesting the theory of evolution un-science?” – No, of course not. But contesting a scientific theory with a philosophical one is nonsensical, is it not?

All of this said, evolution and Intelligent design are addressing very different questions – one describes why we see the species we do on Earth, and the other attempts to account for how the universe began.

By: Brenda

Brenda — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:24:23 +0000

Dave,
Is anything contesting the theory of evolution un-science?
I just want to know if intelligent design is being ridiculed by you because it has no scientific merit, or that the evidence used to support its claims are unsound, and not because it’s associated with good ol’ irrational organized religion.
I wouldn’t want evolution to be furthered by social stigma against those who are not sold by it; I’d want it to be because it’s met the burden of evidence.

By: Matteo

Matteo — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:31:19 +0000

Jorg–

What I hear you saying is, “censorship is cool!” Thanks for clearing that up for me. Brian Schmidt’s comment makes a lot more sense…

By: Brian Schmidt

Brian Schmidt — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:03:13 +0000

I agree that Behe doesn’t belong in Science, but if you move it on your own, staff can’t tell a customer who wants it, where to find it. I don’t see much difference between moving it and sticking it into an onsite trash can.

Better would be to complain to staff that it belongs in Religion.

By: Jorg

Jorg — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:48:41 +0000

Matteo: it appears that you are quite unclear on the concept of censorship. Nobody is trying to shut these people up, or precude them from publishing whatever they want. But just as a cookbook, say, does not belong in a Mathematics section of a library or bookstore, and just as The Lord of the Rings should not be shelved in history section, Behe/Dembski/Meyer’s drivel should not be put in the science section, since science it ain’t.

By: Joy

Joy — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:18:04 +0000

*chuckle* Yeah, I’ll admit to doing that too. Except I normally find something of S. J. Gould’s to do the trick. I then proceed to cackle manically.

By: Matteo

Matteo — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:59:15 +0000

Brave Darwinists. Always censorin’.