This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Lemniscate's Profile

Lemniscate's Avatar Joined almost 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Lemniscate

More Discussions by Lemniscate

Latest Comments by Lemniscate

Go to: Evolution's Footprints in Human Genome Precisely Tracked Using New Approach

Lemniscate's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by Lemniscate

This article isn't very clear on whether these methods are useful primarily for finding out what genes are undergoing selection now or for finding which genes underwent selection in the evolution of modern humans. Surely the latter is more difficult and more interesting, yet the examples given were of genes where selection appears to be occurring now.

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:01:00 UTC | #430934

Go to: Homeopathy & Nutritionists vs Real Science!

Lemniscate's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Lemniscate

This was great at the 'Night of 400bn stars' event, and I was pleased by the extra snippet at the start where he asked if anyone knew what exp(i*Pi) was.

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:37:00 UTC | #381715

Go to: Why is science important?

Lemniscate's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by Lemniscate

I thought this video was excellent. I don't agree with the AQA curriculum guy, though. The exams set just don't come up to scratch: There was an interesting report by SCORE on the quality of GCSE science examinations.

And this is what schools work towards in their science classes.

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:53:00 UTC | #381002

Go to: Dennett at the Darwin Festival

Lemniscate's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by Lemniscate

The theologians missed the reason Dennett hasn't concentrated on their 'reasoning', although he said it in his report: it was intellectual tennis without a net.

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:58:00 UTC | #377755

Go to: Unbelievable? PZ Myers and Denis Alexander on Faith and Science

Lemniscate's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by Lemniscate

Returning to methodological naturalism, if indeed natural science is essentially restricted in this way, if such a restriction is part of the very essence of science, then what we need here, of course, is not natural science, but a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth and could have done it in many different ways. "Unnatural science," "Creation Science," "Theistic Science"—call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by methodological naturalism.
Alvin Plantinga

Pseudo-profundity translation:

If the evidence contradicts my religion, let's make up an answer and call it 'scientific'.

These 'sophisticated theologians' never feel the need to complain about the methodological naturalism that produced the germ theory of disease and antibiotics to which they probably owe their continuing existence. Most theologians and theistic scientists I've read do little more than special pleading writ large.

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:41:00 UTC | #375381

More Comments by Lemniscate