Comments on: In the beginning… http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/ Exploring the Craft of Science Fiction and Fantasy Writing Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:41:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Dez http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/#comment-2590 Dez Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:28:52 +0000 http://www.peter-hodges.com/?p=882#comment-2590 "Intelligent Design" is a phrase that bothers me. It seems to be a PR stunt by which Creationism is white-washed and called by another name. This is a system of faith, not science... or rather, at best it is a hypothesis that has yet to acquire scientific evidence to support it. (As a faith issue I am OK with Creationism, but dressing it up as science appears deceptive in purpose. IMO I.D. is a tactic solely to debunk evolution, not a scientific search for origin.) I feel much the same way about evolutionary theory. It is accepted as fact without proof (which is an act of faith)... otherwise (with proof) it would be known as the LAW of evolution. It continues to fail to provide answers to the origins of life, yet because it is seems plausible and palatable it is hailed as the ultimate truth. Even Dr. Richard Dawkins, world renowned and published evolutionary biologist and atheist, admits that he cannot make the leap back from the most primitive single celled organism to the "primordial soup" without invoking the interference and seeding of extra-terrestrials. Strangely, he also has admitted that life appears to have a purposed design, but attributes that design to aliens instead of deity. What a crock. By this Dawkins forces us to look for the origins of life, not on Earth but, on another planet... who knows, maybe it was Krypton. This is not science. Imaginative, yet unproven, stories are not evidence. Show me the data. Show me the evidence, the proof... or call it what it is... just another system of faith. “Intelligent Design” is a phrase that bothers me. It seems to be a PR stunt by which Creationism is white-washed and called by another name. This is a system of faith, not science… or rather, at best it is a hypothesis that has yet to acquire scientific evidence to support it. (As a faith issue I am OK with Creationism, but dressing it up as science appears deceptive in purpose. IMO I.D. is a tactic solely to debunk evolution, not a scientific search for origin.) I feel much the same way about evolutionary theory. It is accepted as fact without proof (which is an act of faith)… otherwise (with proof) it would be known as the LAW of evolution. It continues to fail to provide answers to the origins of life, yet because it is seems plausible and palatable it is hailed as the ultimate truth. Even Dr. Richard Dawkins, world renowned and published evolutionary biologist and atheist, admits that he cannot make the leap back from the most primitive single celled organism to the “primordial soup” without invoking the interference and seeding of extra-terrestrials. Strangely, he also has admitted that life appears to have a purposed design, but attributes that design to aliens instead of deity. What a crock. By this Dawkins forces us to look for the origins of life, not on Earth but, on another planet… who knows, maybe it was Krypton. This is not science. Imaginative, yet unproven, stories are not evidence. Show me the data. Show me the evidence, the proof… or call it what it is… just another system of faith.

]]> By: Catalyst22 http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/#comment-2589 Catalyst22 Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:56:13 +0000 http://www.peter-hodges.com/?p=882#comment-2589 I change my opinion... I liked it more when I thought it was about the "duality of man". I change my opinion… I liked it more when I thought it was about the “duality of man”.

]]> By: SgtWebb http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/#comment-2588 SgtWebb Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:07:58 +0000 http://www.peter-hodges.com/?p=882#comment-2588 Yeah, but you left out the part where truth got anally penetrated by the democrats. Yeah, but you left out the part where truth got anally penetrated by the democrats.

]]> By: Pete http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/#comment-2587 Pete Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:28:49 +0000 http://www.peter-hodges.com/?p=882#comment-2587 1. Intelligent design. 2. The environmental lobby (which includes global warming) 3. The shameless pandering required of professional researchers in acadaemia competing for federal funds (from the NSF). They are forced to write grants in such a way that it feeds on the fear/anger cycle in the population. 4. The conversion of an empirical, rational methodology to one that serves the needs of those with a political and/or religious agenda. 1. Intelligent design.
2. The environmental lobby (which includes global warming)
3. The shameless pandering required of professional researchers in acadaemia competing for federal funds (from the NSF). They are forced to write grants in such a way that it feeds on the fear/anger cycle in the population.
4. The conversion of an empirical, rational methodology to one that serves the needs of those with a political and/or religious agenda.

]]> By: Dez http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/#comment-2586 Dez Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:12:03 +0000 http://www.peter-hodges.com/?p=882#comment-2586 Perhaps Pete you are referring to the "Global Warming" agenda? (Personally, I'm still keeping my eyes out for Man-Bear-Pig. Thanks much to Mr. Gore for the warning.) Maybe you are taking a pot-shot at pop-psychology or the legal and socio-sexual ramifications of pop-genetics. Come on, Pete... tell us what's eatin' ya. Perhaps Pete you are referring to the “Global Warming” agenda? (Personally, I’m still keeping my eyes out for Man-Bear-Pig. Thanks much to Mr. Gore for the warning.) Maybe you are taking a pot-shot at pop-psychology or the legal and socio-sexual ramifications of pop-genetics. Come on, Pete… tell us what’s eatin’ ya.

]]> By: Dez http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/#comment-2585 Dez Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:55:42 +0000 http://www.peter-hodges.com/?p=882#comment-2585 All I'm wondering is... "WTF" happened to get him on this particular tangent? That would be interesting to know. I'm a slow and deliberate reader already, but without context, this was like wading through deep mud... while wearing snowshoes. I find agreement with Pete's general observation, but I'm sure my specific application of such leaves me standing solo. Some scientists seem less concerned with the scientific method than than they are with plausibility of concept (a good story)... and tall tales are for entertaining children or bilking fools with money. All I’m wondering is… “WTF” happened to get him on this particular tangent? That would be interesting to know. I’m a slow and deliberate reader already, but without context, this was like wading through deep mud… while wearing snowshoes. I find agreement with Pete’s general observation, but I’m sure my specific application of such leaves me standing solo. Some scientists seem less concerned with the scientific method than than they are with plausibility of concept (a good story)… and tall tales are for entertaining children or bilking fools with money.

]]> By: Mr. Chris http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/#comment-2581 Mr. Chris Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:36:54 +0000 http://www.peter-hodges.com/?p=882#comment-2581 Consider "WTF" a backhanded compliment. May your site always remain focused, but never completely predictable. Consider “WTF” a backhanded compliment. May your site always remain focused, but never completely predictable.

]]> By: catalyst22 http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/#comment-2582 catalyst22 Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:30:39 +0000 http://www.peter-hodges.com/?p=882#comment-2582 I thought it was fairly brilliant. I thought it was fairly brilliant.

]]> By: Blitzfike http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/#comment-2583 Blitzfike Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:13:01 +0000 http://www.peter-hodges.com/?p=882#comment-2583 I totally understood the point. I also didn't see it as humor as much as a reality check on what we are seeing as junk science today. Keep at it Pete... I totally understood the point. I also didn’t see it as humor as much as a reality check on what we are seeing as junk science today. Keep at it Pete…

]]> By: Pete http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/07/26/in-the-beginning/#comment-2584 Pete Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:45:42 +0000 http://www.peter-hodges.com/?p=882#comment-2584 I've gotten several emails on this post so far, ranging from "WTF?" to proclaiming that I'm a "scientific anarchist" (whatever <i>that</i> means). Keep 'em coming. We'll showcase the best in a mailbag on Sunday or Monday. I’ve gotten several emails on this post so far, ranging from “WTF?” to proclaiming that I’m a “scientific anarchist” (whatever that means).

Keep ‘em coming. We’ll showcase the best in a mailbag on Sunday or Monday.

]]>