tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post3908844495434673771..comments2024-01-02T10:55:10.607-06:00Comments on Angry Astronomer: Book Review - Finding Darwin's GodJon Voiseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550625188837528980noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-38292354484746316512013-02-06T08:55:00.359-06:002013-02-06T08:55:00.359-06:00mhdueck: From my very first post in this blog:
In ...mhdueck: From my very first post in this blog:<br />In recent years, religious fundamentalists have been working to destroy any science that they find objectionable when compared to their religion. Currently, this is primarily in the attacks on evolution through the torjan horse of Intelligent Design. However, the anti-scientific movement has been growing. Censorship and villification of scientists has begun. It is with this in mind that I entitle this blog "Angry Astronomer", since this I find myself quite irate over this senseless attack on science.Jon Voiseyhttp://jonvoisey.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-17233618855977983752013-02-05T10:01:09.115-06:002013-02-05T10:01:09.115-06:00I realize that the last comments on this book were...I realize that the last comments on this book were years ago, but I just read Miller's book because it was a choice for a book review in our daughter's biology class at university. First of all, I will question the prof on the choice of book - it is always suspect to me when an author tries to blend god and science and make it work. It seems like a desperate attempt to hold on to god, and readjust as necessary so as not to have to let go of the idea; unlike science that is ready to let go of an idea when new information has been discovered. Although I do admit that given a questioning mind, the premise of the book does give budding scientists an idea of the thinking out there. I hope that is the reason for the choice.<br /><br /> I think the most glaring error or omission in this book, and in your book review, is that the first edition of On the Origin of Species did not have "by the Creator" in the last paragraph of the book. We have David Quammen's Illustrated Edition, which uses the text from Darwin's first edition, so when I read that I was livid, thinking that Miller had added those words to his argument's benefit. Inconceivable! But what I found was that that phrase was added to future editions, from what I could glean from reading of this change, to pacify his religious wife and to take the edge off of the controversial information he was publishing. That seems to be Miller's trump card - see, Darwin did believe in god, at least after the first edition. He seems to leave this point out of his argument.<br /><br />Your point about atheists being too aggressive in their opinions which send even doubters running back to the creationist camp, seems to be what Darwin's editors were also thinking. Soften the blow so that at least people will read the book. Perhaps their thinking will evolve.<br /><br />I am amazed that the evolution/creation debate still brews. But believe me, I know. I live in a community where evolutionists are hell bound.<br /><br />See you there.<br />Marie<br /><br />PS Why are you an angry astronomer?mhduecknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-27362496709062209242011-05-10T18:27:41.135-05:002011-05-10T18:27:41.135-05:00Your grandmother's objection is certainly a ne...Your grandmother's objection is certainly a new one to me! I usually hear objections surrounding the idea of a soul. Which is one that makes sense to me, as, when I was still religious, that was something that bothered me. When did the soul first show up? Where did it fit in with evolution?<br><br>Never heard anyone bring up the <i>future</i> before, though!Paper Handhttp://hand-of-paper.insanejournal.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-12604456157039645332008-11-30T21:46:00.000-06:002008-11-30T21:46:00.000-06:00Your grandmother's objection is certainly a new on...Your grandmother's objection is certainly a new one to me! I usually hear objections surrounding the idea of a soul. Which is one that makes sense to me, as, when I was still religious, that was something that bothered me. When did the soul first show up? Where did it fit in with evolution?<BR/><BR/>Never heard anyone bring up the <I>future</I> before, though!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-7233309296759760472007-08-03T00:36:00.000-05:002007-08-03T00:36:00.000-05:00I agree with Wayne with the quantum mechanics part...I agree with Wayne with the quantum mechanics part. While digits of pi is something that can be determined by better precision, the uncertainty of quantum mechanics is an inherent feature of the theory. This seems to be not so well understood among general non-physicist scientists. I repeat, there are things that are determined but that we do not/ cannot know because of our limits. But there are things that we cannot know because the outcome is not determined in the first place. Combine this with the "butterfly effect". You have a definitely undetermined universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-32322382116495148732007-07-08T23:45:00.000-05:002007-07-08T23:45:00.000-05:00Good essay. I was not impressed with the quantum u...Good essay. I was not impressed with the quantum uncertainty arguments either. Not because I know a lot about quantum mechanics(I don't by the way) but it just seems like the ready made solution that everyone jumps to try explain hard problems like consciousness, free will, the origin of life and how to make a really good cup of tea.Paul D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00535027161567978343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-33358213029737728562007-07-08T21:27:00.000-05:002007-07-08T21:27:00.000-05:00Thanks for the review. I have a feeling that I am ...Thanks for the review. I have a feeling that I am in pretty close agreement with Miller, but it still seems like an interesting book.<BR/><BR/>As for your grandmother's objection, it's a simple matter of time scales. Everything in the Bible is "modern" in the geological and evolutionary senses, so there's no reason to assume that the events of Revelation are any more distant in the future as Adam and Eve are in the past. I'm not usually one of the "any day now" types, but compared to evolutionary timescales it's pretty much a choice between "any day" or "never".<BR/><BR/>Have you heard of John Polkinghorn? He says a lot of the same sort of things, although aside from a borrowed (and damaged) cassette tape in grad school I don't know a lot about him. I actually like the quantum uncertainty idea. Unlike Pi, which can be determined to arbitrary precision for a given calculation, there is no known mechanism to overcome quantum uncertainty.Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06225141731323795678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-58441944898214080972007-07-08T07:57:00.000-05:002007-07-08T07:57:00.000-05:00Good essay, Jon.Good essay, Jon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com