By Raoul

September 9, 2010 7:38 PM | Link to this

So, Blowfly, are we saying that Homer Simpson might be the wisest of us all? I wonder what Hawking would think about that!

By Blowfly

September 9, 2010 10:44 AM | Link to this

Or, “Bart, if there’s something in life that’s really really hard to do, it’s probably not worth doing.” Don’t get me started on Bart Simpson quotes. As for global warming we could inject the air with silver nitrate, which reflects the suns rays, and that would solve the problem. Of course, the sky wouldn’t be blue anymore.

By Raoul

September 9, 2010 7:24 AM | Link to this

Blowfly, my favorite Homer Simpson quote is “Trying is the first step toward failure”. I think in regards to humans actually being able to control global warming, however caused, Homer is right.

By Blowfly

September 8, 2010 5:28 PM | Link to this

Raul, I appreciate the distinction you are drawing, but it sounds like your advocating for inaction by paralysis. You have to act on the best information available and if you think that man has played a role in global warming, then you have to acknowledge that that role is increasing and at some point it will become a problem (if it isn’t already). So, why wait until it’s truly too late to do something. And, even setting aside global warming we need to get to a sustainable energy model simply because we can’t sustain the present model. Thus, moving away from carbon based fuels serves two purposes,which makes it doubly counterproductive do do nothing. As for Hawking, I’m reminded of the episode of the Simpson’s where Homer’s trapped in a parallel universe circling the edge of a blackhole and says “I wish I’d read that book by that guy in the wheelchair.”

By Raoul

September 8, 2010 3:03 PM | Link to this

Nice try Blowfly. I did not shift the burden of truth. No human can prove either argument, for or against ID, evolution, or GW. Therefore, it is all opinion. That was my point. Science cannot determined by consensus. Scientific consensus is rather the same as making odds for next week’s NFL schedule. I am reasonably sure that humans play some part in global warming. I am not convinced that it is bad. I am reasonably convinced that all scientific advances come to a barrier where they can go no further, and beyond the barrier is either intelligent design, or science yet to be discovered. I am reasonably sure that the more knowledge we gain, the more questions we have to ask. In other words, the more we know, the more there is to know. I bet this has occurred to Mr. Hawking, and I would like to read his new book.

By Blowfly

September 8, 2010 12:05 PM | Link to this

Shouldn’t you have to “prove” intelligent design for it to be true. Raoul shifts the burden so that if you can’t prove its false then it must be true. The same is true of global warming, set aside the cherry pickers on both sides and look at the meta-analysis done in 2007 by the UN. It said that there’s a 90% probability that the warming seen in the last half of the 20th century is due at least in part to man. That’s not a certainty like Al Gore says, but it’s pretty convincing. Most of the conflict in science and religion is not driven by either, it’s political.

By Raoul

September 7, 2010 3:45 PM | Link to this

Fine, Mark. Ask Hawking to prove to all of us without a shadow of a doubt that there is no Intelligent Design. He can’t. Now, ask all of the leading scientists to prove to us that global warming is man-made and we have the power to prevent it. They can’t. So, you are now reduced to opinions. My guess is your dad could probably make some darn good suggestions to peanut farmers, if they asked. There are no degrees for common sense, but common sense is the most valuable subject of all.

By Mark from St Paul

September 5, 2010 6:09 PM | Link to this

“I have read some stuff by people who rival Hawking for credentials say the exact opposite.” I’ve always found that if you check to see what exactly the dissenters’ credentials are in, there really isn’t a conflict. Global warming, for instance, is not opposed by scientists who study global warming, but by scientists in other fields. PZ Myers’ Pharyngula blog writes a lot about the “conflicts” in science, and invariably it turns out that the dissenting scientists don’t have credentials in the areas they criticize. My dad is a master farmer, but a lifetime of growing corn wouldn’t qualify him to advise peanut farmers.

By Raoul

September 3, 2010 5:42 PM | Link to this

I liked your post Max. I think you are on to something. Imagine a cell looking up into the opposite side of a high powered microscope at the eye that is beholding. I think that is the state of humanity. We don’t even use much of the brain that we have been given. Maybe some day we will learn to use enough to figure it all out, but my guess is we are not meant to. So, we blog!

By Max

September 3, 2010 4:17 PM | Link to this

My copy is back ordered, part of the publishing world’s grand plan…..As far as the religion v. science thing goes, I think both are better suited to ask questions rather than answering them with infinite, universal truth. Religion tends to be more deductive, contingency based (i.e. Aquinas) while science tends to be more inductive through its systems of experimentation and variances of ‘true in all cases.’ Religion asks us to subordinate the intellect to belief while science asks us to inquire without bias from a position which is known. Both interests do however assign ‘order’ for our understanding; the product of brain function. Does nature assign its own order? Does matter act of its own accord? Does the universe have a common particle ancestor? I don’t know but it is intriguing to think about it sometime. I had a college math teacher who, the first day of class, announced all things known could be expressed through math. Like many disrespectful grad students I interrupted her with a hand raising effort of respect. I was recognized and I asked, “Could you then provide the mathmatical expression for ‘love?’ My point is all systems - including religion and science - are vulnerable to overreaching and self-refutation. Why? Because they are man made.

By victor mickunas

September 3, 2010 3:46 PM | Link to this

Raoul, I don’t know what is true and what isn’t. So I blog…

By Max

September 3, 2010 1:53 PM | Link to this

Vick, I have been reading pre-release quotes, blurbs, and the like all week about this book. Theoretic physics is a fascinating aspect of science; some argue it is the summation of science. I don’t know since that’s above my IQ paygrade. Since Hawking asked the question, “Does God play dice with the universe,” he received a lot of criticism from science, religions, philospohers, and so forth. For that I think his influence is self evident. Hawking’s work is still a work in progress and his conclusions of the past have undergone revisions. I think this is going to be another one. Science has progressed, in one sense, more than religion because of Science’s rational nature. However, what I extract from Hawking’s inquiries is that science is not in opposition to spirituality any more than the creative arts are in opposition to reason and logic. I do think it is unfortunate he, like Einstein, addresses ‘God’ as a reasonable presence in his work products. Hawking does know he works in the context and vernacular of his culture and this may explain part of his preoccupation with Aristotlean ‘originalcause’ for everything. The copy I ordered is on back-order which may be part of the ‘grand design’ of the publisher…….Hawking’s previous books - the non-academics - are very readable although it will send some to Wikipedia for some basic foundations at times. I do disagree with Mike on one point he made; I don’t think Hawking or others in science are ‘enemies’ of those who are more belief-centered in their religious faiths. Perhaps some, but certainly not all. The major religions struggle with the immutable, literal truths of their doctrines and there seems to be movement, slow albeit, towards more symbolic, metaphoically derived truths as mankind’s knowledge expands. Anyway, I had to add that…..

By FlyingMonkey

September 3, 2010 12:14 PM | Link to this

The main problem I have with arguments about ‘god/God’ is the suggestion that there even IS one answer. That is contradictory to my concept of “god/God.” I’m not even certain one ‘concept of REALITY’ works for everyone when you permit quantum physics to be involved and consider parallel dimensions. Trying to impose a universal definition of God onto everyone on the planet is so limiting that it becomes self-defeating by way of it’s own definition of an all-capable being. Sometimes just ‘Good Orderly Direction’ works best, but the ripple effect of chaos often preludes creativity. Critics certainly must know that!

By Raoul

September 3, 2010 10:30 AM | Link to this

Interesting take, Mike. Funny, I have read some stuff by people who rival Hawking for credentials say the exact opposite. That the more science uncovers, the more it appears that there is some type of intelligent design on display. I am not suggesting the earth is only 6000 years old. I am suggesting that many of the things we have learned about our universe cannot be explained other than by giving the nod to intelligent design. Almost all of the icons held up as proof of evolution and natural selection have been discredited in one way or another. Example 1: the pre-Cambrian explosion of life forms is at total odds with a long history of natural selection. Example 2: The archeopterix was a dead end and not a life form in transition. Example 3: The Tree of Life Model no longer is valid. Example 4: The fossil record still does not reveal a missing link. Example 5: Embryo’s do not all pass through a common phase. I don’t know what is true and what isn’t. Neither does Hawking. Do you Vick? I would like to know.

By Mike

September 3, 2010 9:28 AM | Link to this

Vick, I think you do yourself a disservice by passing on this book. I’m not sure that I share your sentiment that it’s best-seller status is a vindication of the intellectual level or curiosity of the American reading public in general. When nearly half of the American public believes that the earth and all it’s inhabitants were “created” by a “god” complete, in all their current forms, somewhere in the neighborhood of 6000 years ago, I think that is a greater reflection of our level of “smarts” of the American public than the #1 position of Hawking’s book. Science, and people like Steven Hawking, are mortal enemies of these people. The more science proves about the universe, the more many of the foundations of our most popular religions are dismantled and marginalized. That is the reason there is such a concerted effort in this country to “teach the controversies” in science class. When, in fact, there is no controversy in science. The fact that much of religious belief does not stand up under the scrutiny of the scientific method makes them incompatible in almost every way.