This post will refer to a couple of NY Times articles. They want registration, and I have not noticed ill effects of it, but for the shy, there is http://www.bugmenot.com.

A few weeks ago, Paul Davies made an op-ed column which I complained about here .

Last week, Dennis Overbye, NYT science columnist, put together a collection of responses (and re-responses from Davies) .

I was bemused by the variety in the responses, and I still find little to admire in Davies responses, but he holds an influential position, so perhaps I'm not trying hard enough.  But it seemed a fertile topic for discussion.

above crossposted to philosophy.   ( I'll put some of my comments behind a cut. )

is an op-ed piece in the NY Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

The apparent aim is to improve the dialog between the religious and science.  I'm all for the aim, and Davies has impressive credentials, but
( I don't agree with his major point. )

Comments on Dawkins' book

The main reason Dawkins gives for writing this book is to combat the guilt pangs that established conservative religions instill in their young to preserve their membership and power.  He regards such as cults.  Many use some of the tricks of cults to maintain their hold.  The God Delusion is described in its beginning as his de-programming effort.

If that was all that he tried to do, I'd applaud.  ( Read more... )

Dennis Overbye has an essay on the New York Times (registration required) lamenting the prediction that soon we won't be able to see anything but what's in our local galaxy cluster.  (And that might have merged into a single galaxy.)  That will long have ceased to interest anyone around here, but he is thinking of future societies trying to figure out how the universe works, and not having our ability to see far-off clusters - expansion will have taken them beyond our light horizon.

( Read more... )

Below the cut are some links to related not-locked FL discussions on Heliocentrism=Atheism and "The God Delusion", because some of the discussions are good (and related, in my mind), and I want pointers collected.

( Read more... )

Recently, several of my FL have posted the Hugos meme
Partial list:
stoutfellow  http://stoutfellow.livejournal.com/184143.html
sebastian_tombs  http://sebastian-tombs.livejournal.com/210595.html
kd5mdk  http://kd5mdk.livejournal.com/134564.html

I started reading SF before there were Hugos; my greatest unfamiliarity is at this end.   I won't post the list here - I might some day.  But the list brought an issue to mind that connected with something else. ( cut for SF to philosophy to ethics ramble )

This book came out in 1996 in hardback and subsequently in paperback.  I read it recently because of the Intelligent Design issues that arose recently in Kansas and Pennsylvania.  Behe was an expert witness in support of presenting Intelligent Design in public school curricula in the Pennsylvania trial.  His book has been adequately reviewed - you know how to search, but I'll mention some below.  I don't know that it has received adequate unbiased reviews.  I shall, of course, try to provide one, but I was not a fan of Intelligent Design before and Behe did not convert me.  He did write a good book; it is quite readable and raises several points worth discussing.

( REVIEW )
( CRITIQUE )
( CONTROVERSY )
( OTHER RESOURCES )
( SOME RELATED ISSUES )
( Falsifiability )
( Anthropic Principle )