LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2014
Posts: 5,832
Default In response to...

....a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...

On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal
titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.” Lawrence Krauss
responded with the following letter disputing its specious science
claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his
response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on
right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and
misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record.

By Lawrence Krauss

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science
Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a
religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate
scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of
life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here
on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a
different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the
author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life
that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would
obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that
anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy
than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in
extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates
of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything,
the odds have increased, not decreased.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength
of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces
had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the
fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it
would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life
being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the
other way around.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of
design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.
The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we
now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design
is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable
efficiency of natural selection.

Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific
arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing
a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice
to its readers.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space
Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why
there is something rather than nothing.
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Response TopBassDog General 60 August 28th 10 06:27 AM
Response Thom Stewart ASA 2 December 20th 06 06:16 PM
OT--Great response! NOYB General 10 August 30th 04 04:12 PM
Response Old Nick Boat Building 0 August 12th 03 06:53 AM
malibu response question J.W. Frank General 26 July 11th 03 03:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017