Intalnire online

Discutie online Scepticul Michael Shermer: Nicio religie nu ar trebui predata in scoli

de Redactia     HotNews.ro
Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:00 Science - Stiintele vietii


Michael Shermen
Foto: Bety Blagu / HotNews.ro
Michael Shermer, una dintre cele mai importante personalitati ale vietii intelectuale americane, s-a aflat in redactia HotNews.ro si a discutat online cu cititorii despre Darwin, evolutie si argumentele impotriva "designului inteligent". Shermer este editorul revistei Skeptic Magazine, licentiat in psihologie, masterand in psihologie experimentala si doctor in Istoria Stiintei, publica saptamanal pentru Scientific American si este profesor adjunct la Claremont University.
  • Nota redactiei: Pentru a pastra coerenta si relevanta discutiei, nu vom valida comentariile care nu se refera la temele anuntate, care nu contin intrebari sau care constau in atacuri la persoana.

Shermer spune despre sine ca este un sceptic. De altfel, este si intemeietorul asociatiei Skeptic si editorul revistei cu acelasi nume. Pentru Shermer gandirea sceptica nu este insa un mod de viata, ceva asemanator unei religii sau ideologii, ci doar un mod de a gandi, o metoda ce te ajuta sa testezi diferite afirmatii si pretentii teoretice. A fi sceptic inseamna a cere probe si dovezi clare pentru a crede ceva.

Aceasta gandire sceptica o foloseste Shermer si in cartea sa "Why Darwin Matters: Evolution and the Case Against Intelligent Design". El aduce o serie de argumente impotriva teoriei creationiste a "Intelligent Design" conform careia diversitatea vietii pe Pamant poate fi explicata mai bine prin interventia unei inteligente calauzitoare - Dumnezeu sau extraterestri - decat prin actiunea evolutiei sau a selectiei naturale. Conform autorului american, creationismul nici nu este o teorie stiintifica iar oamenii resping inca teoria evolutiei din cauza a diferite temeri si motive, frica de ateism, de relativism moral sau pentru ca, din cauza propriului ego, nu se pot inchipui rude cu animalele.

Cartea a primit multe aprecieri pentru curajul ei de a intra in polemica cu adeptii creationismului, polemica pe care oamenii de stiinta au evitat-o de obicei, in ultimele decenii.

Vezi si:

Dr Michael Shermer va sustine o conferinta cu aceeasi tema in Bucuresti 9 septembrie 2009, ora 17.45, în Amfiteatrul Titu Maiorescu al Facultatii de Filosofie a Universitatii Bucuresti (Splaiul Independenţei nr. 204). Conferinta este organizata de Asociatia Umanista Romana.

Vineri, 11 septembrie, Michael Shermer se va gasi la Cluj unde va prezenta la ora 15, in sala  Jean Monnet a Facultatii de Studii Europene, cartea "De ce cred oamenii în bazaconii?"



Citeste mai multe despre   










Întrebari puse de cititorii HotNews.ro:


  • Întrebarea nr. 1 gogu

    Are sens notiunea de evolutie intr-un univers deterministic? Exista dovezi ca universul nostru nu este deterministic? Exista in biologie vreun fenomen spontan, despre care se stie sigur ca nu are nicio cauza?

    • Michael Shermer

      Evolution is deterministic, although "chance" events, such as meteor impacts on earth that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, are next to impossible to predict and build into our models of evolution, and so this is what we call "contingent" events.

      Evolutia este determinista, desi evenimentele bazate pe "intamplare", precum meteorii care au lovit Pamantul si au provocat disparitia dinozaurilor, sunt practic imposibil de prezis si de inclus in modelele noastre de evolutie, asadar acestea sunt ceea ce noi numim evenimente "contingente".

  • Întrebarea nr. 2 zdragomir

    Watching the religious phenomenon, you could say that it's like a virus (STD), because it's easily transmited from parents to defenseless children.

    Do you think this cycle can every be broken, by liberal / non-violent means?

    • Michael Shermer

      Education is the answer, especially science education. The government should not be in the religion business and religions should not receive any public monies or assistance of any kind. Children are too young to understand big philosophical and theological issues, such as the existence of god, free will v. determinism, etc., and in any case they just want to be kids and have fun growing up. So the state should not impose religion on people, and parents should not bother children with such issues until they are in their late teens.


      Raspunsul consta in educatie, indeosebi educatie stiintifica. Guvernul nu trebuie sa se amestece in sectorul religiei, iar religiile nu ar trebui sa primeasca bani publici sau sprijin public de orice fel. Copiii sunt prea tineri sa inteleaga marile probleme filosofice sau teologice, precum existenta lui dumnezeu, liberul arbitru v. determinism etc. si in orice caz vor doar sa fie copii si sa creasca distrandu-se. Asa ca statul nu ar trebui sa impuna religia asupra oamenilor, iar parintii nu trebuie sa-si tulbure copiii cu asemenea probleme pana cand acestia ajung la adolescenta tarzie.

  • Întrebarea nr. 3 zdragomir

    In Romania, evolutionary theory is becoming less and less visible in the educational system, and as far as I can remember, the evolutionary biology classes never made (or help make) the point that this science would void the creationist religious myth. Most of my former class-mates didn't notice the inherent incompatibility.

    Could this degradation in public education lead to a new wave of private or public religious schools (especially in Romania), like there were in the Dark Ages?

    • Michael Shermer

      The Romanian government, and especially the public school system, should not be in the religion business, should not teach any religion in any schools to any students, especially in science classes. Think about it this way: if Islam were the dominant religion in Romania, which some day it could be (as it is rapidly becoming in many European countries such as France and the U.K.), do you Christian parents still want the government to fund religious instruction in public schools if that religious instruction was Muslim based?

      Guvernul roman si in special sistemul invatamantului public nu ar trebui sa se implice in sectorul religiei, nicio religie nu ar trebui predata in scoli, mai ales la orele de stiinta. Ganditi-va astfel: daca Islamul ar fi religia dominanta in Romania, ceea ce s-ar putea intampla la un moment dat (avand in vedere ca devine rapid in multe tari europene, precum Franta sau Marea Britanie), ati dori voi, parinti crestini, ca guvernul sa finanteze educatie religioasa in scolile publice, daca acea educatie religioasa este una musulmana?

  • Întrebarea nr. 4 Cornel

    Dumneavostra spuneti ca sunteti un agnostic. Exista si oameni autentic religiosi.
    Poate un om sa fie crestin si in acelasi timp sa creada in teoria evolutionista? Religia crestina este in opozitie astazi cu stiinta?

    • Michael Shermer

      Agnostic is a term coined in 1869 by Thomas Huxley, to mean "unknowable." It is not possible to prove or disprove God, therefore it is a matter of faith, not reason or science. However, there are no behavioral agnostics--one behaves in a way that presumes one either believes or does not believe in God, and in this sense I am an atheist.

      A Christian can accept evolutionary theory as God's way of creating life. The theory of evolution is no more of a problem for Christianity than is the theory of gravity. Presumably Christians assume that God used gravity to create solar systems and planets on which life can exist. So evolution may be the way that God created life. This is not what I believe, because I don't believe in God, but if you do believe in God it is the way you can also accept evolution.



      Agnostic este un termen impus in 1869 de Thomas Huxley, pentru a desemna ceea ce "nu poate fi cunoscut. Nu este posibil sa dovedesti ca exista sau nu Dumnezeu, de aceea este o chestiune de credinta, nu de ratiune sau de stiinta. Totusi, nu exista agnostici comportamentali - cand cineva se comporta intr-un mod ce presupune ca acel om fie crede, fie nu crede in Dumnezeu, iar din acest punct de vedere sunt ateu.

      Un crestin poate accepta teoria evolutionista ca modul lui Dumnezeu de a crea viata. Teoria evolutiei nu este o problema mai mare pentru Crestinism decat este teoria gravitatiei. Crestinii considera ca Dumnezeu a folosit gravitatia pentru a crea sistemele solare si planetele unde poate exista viata. Asa, evolutia poate fi felul in care Dumnezeu a creat viata. Eu nu cred acest lucru, deoarece eu nu cred in Dumnezeu, dar daca dumneavoastra credeti in Dumnezeu in acest fel, atunci puteti accepta si evolutia.

  • Întrebarea nr. 5 zdragomir

    What do you think is the next step in evolution for humans?

    • Michael Shermer

      Assuming we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion, or cause our own extinction through germ warfare, the next step in human evolution will be genetic engineering and technology. We will modify ourselves genetically, first to eliminate diseases such as diabetes and cancer and dementia, etc., then we will modify our brains with chemicals and computers, and eventually, in the far future, we will probably become robots that can live an indefinite period of time, slowly and gradually replacing our biological systems with more durable and long-lasting technologies. Our lives will initially be extended by years, then dozens of years, then hundreds of years. Eventually, we may be able to live forever, but now we're in the realm of science fiction, not science, but it's a dream well worth having.


      Presupunand ca nu ne vom distruge cu bombe si nu vom disparea in razboaie biologice, urmatorul pas in evolutia omului va fi tehnologia si ingineria genetica. Ne vom modifica genetic, mai intai pentru a elimina boli precum diabetul si cancerul si dementa etc, apoi ne vom modifica mintile cu produse chimice si computere si, in cele din urma, in viitorul indepartat, vom deveni probabil roboti care pot sa traiasca o perioada nedeterminata de timp, inlocuindu-ne incet si treptat sistemele biologice cu tehnologii mai durabile. Vietile noastre vor fi extinse, initial, cu cativa ani, apoi cu zeci de ani, apoi sute de ani. In cele din urma, am putea fi in stare sa traim vesnic, dar acum suntem pe taramul stiintifico-fantastic, nu al stiintei, dar este un vis pe care merita sa-l avem.

  • Întrebarea nr. 6 Mihai-G

    Welcome to Romania Dr Shermer

    What do you think about this country in which Darwin's theory was taken out of public schools but where kids study religion for 12 years?

    What should Romanian skeptics, agnostics, atheists etc.. do in a country where priests are paid by the state (i.e. from our money too) and all politicians show off how religious they are and vote to give more money to the church on a constant basis?

    How do you make people value science more than religion?

    Thank you

    • Michael Shermer

      I was appalled to see a Romanian biology textbook for high school. I have a 17 year old daughter who is taking biology this year, and her textbook is light years more advanced than Romanian high school textbooks. Romania needs to upgrade its science education dramatically and immediately, and most importantly it needs to get out of the religion business. If you want religion, GO TO CHURCH. If you want an eduction GO TO SCHOOL. Do not mix church and school. Do not mix religion and education. Romania will forever be mired in a medieval existence as a pseudo-theocracy with religious indoctrination similar to what students received centuries ago before the rise of science.


      Am fost stupefiat cand am vazut un manual de biologie romanesc, pentru liceu. Am o fata de 17 ani care urmeaza cursuri de biologie anul acesta, iar manualul ei este cu mii de ani lumina mai avansat decat manualele de liceu din Romania. Romania are nevoie sa-si imbunatateasca dramatic si imediat educatia stiintifica si, cel mai important, trebuie sa iasa din sectorul religiei. Daca vreti religie, MERGETI LA BISERICA. Daca vreti educatie, MERGETI LA SCOALA. Nu amestecati scoala si biserica. Nu amestecati religia si educatia. Romania va fi impotmolita mereu intr-o existenta medievala ca pseudo-teocratie, cu o indoctrinare religioasa similara cu ceea ce elevii primeau cu secole in urma.

  • Întrebarea nr. 7 getu

    Multi oameni prefera sa ignore rationalul in pofida numeroaselor dovezi si continua sa creada (printre altele) in creationism.
    Unii oameni de stiinta sustin ca creierul uman este 'programat' sa creada intr-o fiinta superioara. Ce credeti despre asta? In caz ca e adevarat, va putea educatia si informarea publicului sa "trateze" acest defect?

    • Michael Shermer

      The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, as strong as it is for the big bang theory of the universe, the plate tectonics theory of geology, the heliocentric theory that the earth goes around the sun, and the germ theory of disease. Evolution happened. Deal with it! It's a fact, and no student should be allowed to graduate from a Romanian high school without learning the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

      Our brains evolved to find patterns in nature and to often impose "agency" into those patterns.

      Patternicity: the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise.

      Agenticity: the tendency to believe that the world is inhabited by invisible powerful beings.

      God is a pattern of agency as an explanation for why things happen. And not just God. God is just another form of agency, which includes ghosts, spirits, and other preternatural beings.



  • Întrebarea nr. 8 unAlterEgo

    If the Darwin theory is true, why doesn't the evolution take place anymore? Why don't we see any undoubtable proofs that the evolution takes place in nature? Species are dissapearing instead of evolving.
    Thanks

    • linbetwin

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

      Evolution still occurs today as it always did, by small changes accumulating over millions of years. The fact that it's not fast enough for us to see dramatic changes doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We don't "see" mountains rising or continents moving, but we know they do. If evolution didn't happen, HIV would be dead by now, along with most viruses.

      • Michael Shermer

        I agree! Well put.

    • Michael Shermer

      Evolution is still operating. Humans are still evolving. Genetic research now reveals that blue eyes and blond hair arose only around 6,000 years ago, in Northern Europe, as a result of a single point mutation that then spread because blue eyes and blond hair are genetically linked to lighter skin, which is an adaptation for absorbing Vitamin D from the sun. So, those with lighter skin were better adapted to northern climes, and they also happen to have blue eyes and blond hair. However, it should be noted that in Southern California, where I live, most of the people with blond hair did not evolve it!!!

      Evolutia continua sa opereze. Oamenii continua sa evolueze. Cercetarea genetica dezvalue acum ca ochii albastri si parul blond au aparut in urma cu numai 6000 de ani, in Europa de Nord, ca rezultat al unei mici mutatii care apoi s-a extins, deoarece ochii albastri si parul blond au legatura, genetic, cu pielea deschisa la culoare, care este o adaptare pentru absorbtia de vitamina D sub actiunea soarelui. Deci, oamenii cu piele mai deschisa erau mai bine adaptati climei nordice si s-a intamplat sa aiba ochi albastri si par blond. Totusi, trebuie remarcat ca in California de Sud, unde traiesc, majoritatea oamenilor cu par blond nu au aceasta trasatura in urma evolutiei!!!

  • Întrebarea nr. 9 m3th0dman

    I.
    Since there isn't an intelligent design there isn't a creator, so the first cell must have been made trough abiogenesis.
    Now there are two possible cases:
    1.There are very, very many of coincidences that the conditions on Earth are the exact that are required for living (distance to Sun, gravity, climate & others). Slightest changes and life wouldn’t be possible.
    2.If life adapted itself at the conditions on Earth, why didn't it adapted to the conditions on Mars or Venus?

    II. You have to admit that all modern science is based on empiricism, and all theories respect the scientific method (observation, explanation and testing). But evolutionism doesn't respect the last step (I know it's impossible to test it, it takes milions of years). So for evolutionism you must have faith, like for an religion since it ain't proven.

    III.And the last question: Where did the Universe, and the matter we are all made of and surounds us came from? If există a creator, things are known (not explained), hypotising the fact that there is an infinite amount of time before he apeared.
    I’m sorry for my English, but it isn’t my mother tongue.

    • Michael Shermer

      If there was an Intelligent Designer of life on earth, he wasn't very intelligent! Life is messy and poorly design, cobbled together from parts left over from previous generations and modified over long periods of time.

      It now appears that all stars have planets. There are about 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If only 1% of those stars had planets like our own, that would stilll be 2 billion habitable plantes. If only 1% of those evolved simple life forms, that would still be 2 million planets with life. if only 1% of those planets had intelligent life, that would be 20,000 planets with intelligent life, so Earth and its life is really not all that unlikely. In fact, it is a virtual certainty, given this many stars. And don't forget, there are 100-400 billion galaxies in the cosmos, so surely there are ETs all over the universe.

      Daca a existat un Creator Inteligent al vietii pe pamant, nu a fost foarte inteligent! Viata este alandala si are un design saracacios, incropit din elemente ramase de la generatiile trecute si modificat de-a lungul unor perioade lungi de timp.

      Acum aflam ca toate stelele au planete. Sunt circa 200 de miliarde de stele numai in galaxia noastra. Daca 1% dintre acestea au planete precum a noastra, ar insemna 2 miliarde de planete unde poate exista viata. Daca forme simple de viata au evoluat pe numai 1% dintre acestea, atunci inseamna ca ar exista 2 milioane de planete unde exista viata. Daca numai 1% dintre acestea gazduiesc viata inteligenta, aceasta ar insemna 20.000 de planete cu viata inteligenta, deci Pamantul si viata de pe Pamant nu sunt chiar atat de improbabile. Este, de fapt, o siguranta virtuala, dat fiind numarul mare de stele. Si nu uitati, exista 100-400 de miliarde de galaxii in Cosmos, deci sigur exista extraterestri in intreg universul.


  • Întrebarea nr. 10 Vlad G

    What do you say about the Flagellum Bacteria that “evolved” a propulsion system formed from a motor and a propeller? Even Darwin said that if there will be found a complex system that couldn’t be evolved then his theory is wrong. That motor is like a mouse trap, it’s formed by more components, and if you take only one component away then, like the mouse trap, it won’t work. The Darwin’s evolution specifies that only the genes that have a purpose and a function are transmitted further to the new generation of living beings. (note: Darwin didn’t specified genes, because they waren’t discovered yet, but in modern theory genes are asscociated with his theory)

    I believe that there is Intelligent Design in the Universe, but we are not aware of it yet. Just look around and open your eyes. Everything that surrounds us is made by intelligent design.

    Another proof of intelligent design can be found in physics. Let’s take for example the Planck’s constant, if it would be off by only one unit, then the entire Univers that we know would not exist.

    For more info on Flagellum Bacteria visit the link below:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum


    Signed by a sceptic of Darwin’s Theory and also of God and religion.

    • Michael Shermer

      There is no such thing as "the" bacteria flagellum. There are, in fact, many varieties of flagella, some simple and some complex. The three-part flagellum described by creationists as "irreducibly complex" (and therefore "designed") is, in fact, no such thing. It is cobbled together from a much simpler flagellum system in which the parts served multiple functions: secretion of fluids from inside the cell, propulsion through water, securing itself to a substrate. The flagellum evolved for one purpose initially, then co-opted the structure to serve other functions later. This is called exaptation (an "ex adaptation"), which modifies natural selection.


      Nu exista "un" flagel bacterian". Exista, de fapt, numeroase tipuri, unele complexe. Flagelul in trei parti descris de creationisti drept "ireductibil de complex" (deci rezultatul unui design) nu exista asa cum este descris. Este format dintr-un sistem in care partile serveau mai multor functii, precum secretia de fluide din interiorul celulei sau propulsia prin apa. Flagelul a evoluat intr-un singur scop initial, apoi a cooptat structura pentru a servi altor functiuni, ulterior. Acest fenomen se numeste exaptatie.

  • Întrebarea nr. 11 CIprian

    Mr. Shermer,

    Do you know dr. John Lennox and his apology agaginst Ricard Dawings and His book? What is your opinion about his arguments?

    Do you know Henry Morris and his work: The Biblical Basis for modern science? Or Ravi Zacharias, a Christian indian, who explains in his book, Jesus among other gods, why the Christian God is the One and only God? What are your opinion about their arguments?

    • Michael Shermer

      I know John Lennox and debated him in Australia last year. I found him to be a charming man, but his theology left much to be desired. It was no more sophisticated than that of C.S. Lewis, and his arguments are easily answered, as I did in my own books, How We Believe and The Science of Good and Evil

      I have debated Duane T. Gish, who was Henry Morris' numero uno student. Their arguments are easily debunked, which I have done in my book, Why People Believe Weird Things, which was translated into Romanian and now available here in this country.


      Il cunosc pe John Lennox si am si am avut dezbateri cu el  in Australia, anul trecut. Am descoperit un om cuceritor, dar teologia sa lasa mult de dorit. Nu este mai sofisticata decat cea a lui C.S. Lewis, iar argumentele sale pot primi usor un raspuns, asa cum am facut in cartile mele, "How We Believe" si "The Science of Good and Evil".

      Am avut dezbateri cu Duane T. Gish, studentul "numero uno" al lui Henry Morris. Argumentele lor sunt usor demontabile - ceea ce am si facut in cartea mea, "Why People Believe Weird Things" (De ce cred oamenii in bazaconii), tradusa in romana si disponibila acum in aici, in tara.

  • Întrebarea nr. 12 Daniel

    Dr Shermer,

    Why do you think that pseudo-scientific theories, like the (so-called) Intelligent Design, manage to easily attract followers, despite their flawed and biased logic and their lack of empirical evidence?

    I've read some of your previous opinions on this issue, but I'm intrested in knowing if you think that there's a main cause to this phenomenon (i.e. like rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe).

    Thank you!

    • Michael Shermer

      I have thoroughly debunked Intelligent Design in my book Why Darwin Matters, which is now being translated into Romanian. It attracts religious followers because it claims that there is an "intelligent designer" who is always presumed to be God. As a marketing label it works because life does seemed designed: wings were designed to fly, eyes were designed to see. The question is who or what was the designer. Before Darwin it was God. After Darwin, it was natural selection.

      The way belief systems work is this: most of us most of the time adopt our beliefs for psychological, social, and emotional reasons. We then rationalize our beliefs with reasons we can find to support them. The belief comes first, the justification after. This is not how science works.


      Am demontat complet Designul Intelligent in cartea mea "Why Darwin Matters", pe cale sa fie tradusa in limba romana. Teoria atrage adepti religiosi deoarece pretinde ca exista un "designer intelligent", care se presupune ca este Dumnezeu. Ca eticheta de marketing, functioneaza deoarece viata pare rezultatul unui design: aripi concepute pentru zbor, ochi conceputi pentru vedere. Intrebarea este cine sau ce este acel designer. Inainte de Darwin, era Dumnezeu. Dupa Darwin, a fost selectia naturala.

      Felul in care functioneaza sistemele de credinta este urmatorul: cei mai multi dintre noi, cel mai adesea, adoptam credinte din motive psihologice, sociale si emotionale. Apoi le rationalizam, apelam la argumente care sa le sprijine. Credinta apare mai intai, justificarea ulterior. Nu asa functioneaza stiinta.


  • Întrebarea nr. 13 gigi

    If the Intelligent Design is correct and the Universe had a Creator ... who do you think created the Creator? :)

    • Michael Shermer

      I don't think ID is correct. The universe may not have had a creator. It might have created itself, or it may have erupted from another universe. We just don't know. But in any case, if a creator created the universe, then who created the creator? If the creator is that which does not need to be created, then why can't the universe be that which does not need to be created. God. Universe. These are just words.


      Nu cred ca teoria Designului Inteligent este corecta. S-ar putea ca universul sa nu fi avut un creator. Se poate sa se fi creat singur, sau sa fi erupt dintr-un alt univers. Nu stim. In orice caz, daca un creator a creat universul, atunci cine l-a creat pe creator? Daca acel creator entitatea care nu are nevoie sa fie creata, atunci de ce nu poate universul sa fie acel lucru care nu are nevoie sa fie creat? Dumnezeu. Univers. Acestea sunt doar cuvinte.

  • Întrebarea nr. 14 radu

    1. Anyone who knows anything about the scientific community should know that the simple fact that creationists don't publish anything in any respected journal makes their theories baloney. Could you do the job in their place and imagine a scenario in which creationism could be proven? What kind of information should we expect?

    2. Surprinsingly, many evolutionists still use the word "darwinist". Shouldn't we get rid of it? Evolution today is pretty different than 150 years ago, but the thing that bothers me most about it is the way creationists use it as if Darwin is atheist's cult leader and "Origin of the species" is our Bible.

    Thanks a lot and enjoy your stay!

    • Michael Shermer

      What would it take to prove the existence of a creator? A large cash deposit (say $100 million dollars) in a Swiss bank account in my name! (with apologies to Woody Allen!)

      Seriously, it would be difficult to prove the existence of a supernatural creator, because what would that look like in a natural worldview like science? That is, if we discovered that, say, DNA was intelligently designed, wouldn't you want to know how God created DNA? Did she use RNA? If so, how is that different from the evolution of life without a creator?

      The theory of evolution stands on its own regardless of the "Darwin" name. I agree, let's not make this a cult of personaltiy. Had Darwin not discovered evolution by natural selection it would have been someone else. In fact, that someone was Alfred Russel Wallace, who published his theory at the same time as Darwin. The theory does not stand or fall based on one man named Darwin.


      De ce ar fi nevoie pentru a demonstra existenta unui creator? O suma mare (sa zicem 100 de milioane de dolari) intr-un cont la o banca elvetiana, pe numele meu! (cu scuze pentru Woody Allen!)

      Acum, serios, ar fi dificil de demonstrat existenta unui creator supranatural - cum ar arata el dintr-o perspectiva naturala asupra lumii, cum este stiinta? Daca am descoperi, sa zicem, ca ADN-ul este rezultatul unui design inteligent, nu ati vrea sa stiti cum a creat Dumnezeu ADN-ul? A folosit ARN? Daca da, cum se diferentiaza acest lucru de evolutia vietii fara un creator?

      Teoria evolutiei se sustine singura indiferent de numele "Darwin". Sunt de acord, nu trebuie sa facem un cult al personalitatii. Daca Darwin nu ar fi descoperit evolutia prin selectie naturala, ar fi facut-o altcineva. De fapt, acel cineva a fost Alfred Russel Wallace, care a publicat teoria sa in acelasi timp cu Darwin. Teoria nu se sustine si nu cade din cauza unui singur om numit Darwin.

  • Întrebarea nr. 15 Gheorghe V.

    Dr Shermer,

    Stiti cumva vreo explicatie pentru aparitia vietii? Cum din ceva ne-viu si care nu se poate reproduce, a "aparut" ceva viu si care se reproduce?

    Din moment ce teoria evolutionista nu a fost definitiv si indubitabil demonstrata, nu credeti ca adeptii ei, si ateisti in general, sunt tot niste credinciosi? Unii aleg sa creada in Dumnezeu, altii aleg sa creada ca Dumnezeu nu exista. E doar o optiune pe care o face fiecare.

    P.S. Ar fi interesant de facut un interviu cu Darwin, sa ne spuna el de pe lumea cealalta cum stau lucrurile si daca nu cumva si-a revizuit teoria intre timp :)

    • Michael Shermer

      There are half a dozen viable theories for the origins of life: on the surface of the oceans, deep in the oceans, in thermal vents, on ice, in subterranean blocks of rock under high pressure, etc. This is a lively and viable science and we'll see where the evidence leads us as the experiments are run.

      But in any case, the answer "God did it" is no answer at all. It doesn't explain "how" god did it, or where and when she did it. "God" is just a linguistic place holder for "unknown." It explains nothing.


      Exista numeroase teorii viabile privind originea vietii: la suprafata oceanelor, in adancul oceanelor, pe gheata etc. Aceasta este o stiinta vie si viabila si vom vedea unde ne vor duce dovezile pe masura ce au loc experimente.

      Dar, in orice caz, raspunsul "Dumnezeu a facut-o" nu este un raspuns. Nu expica felul cum a facut acest lucru Dumnezeu, sau unde si cand. "Dumnezeu" este doar un termen lingvistic pentru "necunoscut". Nu explica nimic.

  • Întrebarea nr. 16 Adrian

    Dr Shermer, congratulations for being a skeptic, more so for questioning the pseudo-scientific arguments of ‘intelligent design’ perpetrators. Personally, I accept the scientists’ evidence and rationale as to the evolution of the species, the age of the universe and so on. (Although I dare presume something mysterious happened at the last step of the evolution, when the modern human being emerged.) The reluctance to accept such argumentation is, as you say, psychologically interpretable.
    Arguably, political and financial interests support all this “religious” misunderstanding of the issue. I think it’s wrong that official Christian dogma does not embrace reasonable interpretations regarding world creation and it seems like pure politics and manipulation.
    In such perspective, do you see yourself as part of a political clash? As a reactionary to the mainstream ideologists struggling to keep a grip on their followers? Don’t you ever feel that you are in slippery sands questioning individual belief rather than ideologies? Do you think the sociological and political implications of the creationist theory are also to be considered and to what extent?
    Thank you and God bless!

    • Michael Shermer

      I'm not a reactionary! Evolutionary theory is as mainstream and noncontroversial as you can get--within science. My views on evolution are not in the least bit reactionary, compared to scientists. Where I'm a challenging people is on their ideological interference with science. Keep religion out of the science business. Keep religion out of the politics business. If you want relgion, GO TO CHURCH. If you want science, GO TO SCHOOL. It's that simple!


      Nu sunt un reactionar! Teoria evolutionista este consacrata si lipsita de controverse, ca parte a stiintei. Perspectivele mele asupra evolutiei nu sunt deloc reactionare, comparativ cu cele ale oamenilor de stiinta. Eu ii provoc pe oameni pe tema interferentei lor ideologice cu stiinta. Tineti religia departe de stiinta. Tineti religia departe de politica. Daca doriti religie, MERGETI LA BISERICA. Daca vreti stiinta, MERGETI LA SCOALA. E foarte simplu!






7677 vizualizari

  • Determinism (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 11:54)

    gogu [anonim]

    Are sens notiunea de evolutie intr-un univers deterministic? Exista dovezi ca universul nostru nu este deterministic? Exista in biologie vreun fenomen spontan, despre care se stie sigur ca nu are nicio cauza?
    • Chance (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:09)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui gogu

      Evolution is deterministic, although "chance" events, such as meteor impacts on earth that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, are next to impossible to predict and build into our models of evolution, and so this is what we call "contingent" events.

      Evolutia este determinista, desi evenimentele bazate pe "intamplare", precum meteorii care au lovit Pamantul si au provocat disparitia dinozaurilor, sunt practic imposibil de prezis si de inclus in modelele noastre de evolutie, asadar acestea sunt ceea ce noi numim evenimente "contingente".
      • Multumesc pentru raspuns (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 15:41)

        gogu [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Michael Shermer

        ... dar intrebarea era cu totul alta. ce m-a surprins pe mine a fost ca eu credeam ca tema este dezbaterea despre adevarul privind aparitia speciilor, de fapt tema era propaganda teoriei evolutioniste. In naivitatea mea, credeam/speram ca ateismul sau, ma rog, scepticismul (unidirectional) nu este o religie. Cat de tare m-am inselat! Este o religie in toata puterea cuvantului, cu lideri spirituali, pastori, oameni care traiesc din asta. Adevarul?!! "Ce este adevarul?"
        • definitia evolutiei (Joi, 10 septembrie 2009, 16:24)

          Evolutionistul [anonim] i-a raspuns lui gogu

          Evolutia = "iote ce a facut trecerea timpului !"

          Culmea, evolutionismul se bazeaza pe o expresie biblica - concluzia din Eclesiastul 9:11!
  • cycles... (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 12:26)

    zdragomir [utilizator]

    Watching the religious phenomenon, you could say that it's like a virus (STD), because it's easily transmited from parents to defenseless children.

    Do you think this cycle can every be broken, by liberal / non-violent means?
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:11)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui zdragomir

      Education is the answer, especially science education. The government should not be in the religion business and religions should not receive any public monies or assistance of any kind. Children are too young to understand big philosophical and theological issues, such as the existence of god, free will v. determinism, etc., and in any case they just want to be kids and have fun growing up. So the state should not impose religion on people, and parents should not bother children with such issues until they are in their late teens.


      Raspunsul consta in educatie, indeosebi educatie stiintifica. Guvernul nu trebuie sa se amestece in sectorul religiei, iar religiile nu ar trebui sa primeasca bani publici sau sprijin public de orice fel. Copiii sunt prea tineri sa inteleaga marile probleme filosofice sau teologice, precum existenta lui dumnezeu, liberul arbitru v. determinism etc. si in orice caz vor doar sa fie copii si sa creasca distrandu-se. Asa ca statul nu ar trebui sa impuna religia asupra oamenilor, iar parintii nu trebuie sa-si tulbure copiii cu asemenea probleme pana cand acestia ajung la adolescenta tarzie.

  • non-education (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 12:32)

    zdragomir [utilizator]

    In Romania, evolutionary theory is becoming less and less visible in the educational system, and as far as I can remember, the evolutionary biology classes never made (or help make) the point that this science would void the creationist religious myth. Most of my former class-mates didn't notice the inherent incompatibility.

    Could this degradation in public education lead to a new wave of private or public religious schools (especially in Romania), like there were in the Dark Ages?
    • Evolution (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:14)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui zdragomir

      The Romanian government, and especially the public school system, should not be in the religion business, should not teach any religion in any schools to any students, especially in science classes. Think about it this way: if Islam were the dominant religion in Romania, which some day it could be (as it is rapidly becoming in many European countries such as France and the U.K.), do you Christian parents still want the government to fund religious instruction in public schools if that religious instruction was Muslim based?

      Guvernul roman si in special sistemul invatamantului public nu ar trebui sa se implice in sectorul religiei, nicio religie nu ar trebui predata in scoli, mai ales la orele de stiinta. Ganditi-va astfel: daca Islamul ar fi religia dominanta in Romania, ceea ce s-ar putea intampla la un moment dat (avand in vedere ca devine rapid in multe tari europene, precum Franta sau Marea Britanie), ati dori voi, parinti crestini, ca guvernul sa finanteze educatie religioasa in scolile publice, daca acea educatie religioasa este una musulmana?
  • religie (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 12:33)

    Cornel [anonim]

    Dumneavostra spuneti ca sunteti un agnostic. Exista si oameni autentic religiosi.
    Poate un om sa fie crestin si in acelasi timp sa creada in teoria evolutionista? Religia crestina este in opozitie astazi cu stiinta?
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:18)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui Cornel

      Agnostic is a term coined in 1869 by Thomas Huxley, to mean "unknowable." It is not possible to prove or disprove God, therefore it is a matter of faith, not reason or science. However, there are no behavioral agnostics--one behaves in a way that presumes one either believes or does not believe in God, and in this sense I am an atheist.

      A Christian can accept evolutionary theory as God's way of creating life. The theory of evolution is no more of a problem for Christianity than is the theory of gravity. Presumably Christians assume that God used gravity to create solar systems and planets on which life can exist. So evolution may be the way that God created life. This is not what I believe, because I don't believe in God, but if you do believe in God it is the way you can also accept evolution.



      Agnostic este un termen impus in 1869 de Thomas Huxley, pentru a desemna ceea ce "nu poate fi cunoscut. Nu este posibil sa dovedesti ca exista sau nu Dumnezeu, de aceea este o chestiune de credinta, nu de ratiune sau de stiinta. Totusi, nu exista agnostici comportamentali - cand cineva se comporta intr-un mod ce presupune ca acel om fie crede, fie nu crede in Dumnezeu, iar din acest punct de vedere sunt ateu.

      Un crestin poate accepta teoria evolutionista ca modul lui Dumnezeu de a crea viata. Teoria evolutiei nu este o problema mai mare pentru Crestinism decat este teoria gravitatiei. Crestinii considera ca Dumnezeu a folosit gravitatia pentru a crea sistemele solare si planetele unde poate exista viata. Asa, evolutia poate fi felul in care Dumnezeu a creat viata. Eu nu cred acest lucru, deoarece eu nu cred in Dumnezeu, dar daca dumneavoastra credeti in Dumnezeu in acest fel, atunci puteti accepta si evolutia.
      • Jumatati de Adevar (Joi, 10 septembrie 2009, 14:41)

        FalseDilema [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Michael Shermer

        "Nu este posibil sa dovedesti ca exista sau nu Dumnezeu"
        - cum ii poti dovedi unui orb ca exista luna pe cer? sau unui surd ca se aude Bach undeva in apropiere?..

        Dl Shermer imbratiseaza evolutionismul ca pe o stiinta exacta si respinge creationismul ca pe un SF hollywoodian. Nimic mai fals!
        Evolutionismul nu este cu nimic mai presus decat cultele si dogmele bisericesti - asa cum sunt ele intelese astazi. Doar franturi de adevar presarate cu dezinformari intentionate sau neintentionate...
  • future (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 12:34)

    zdragomir [utilizator]

    What do you think is the next step in evolution for humans?
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:22)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui zdragomir

      Assuming we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion, or cause our own extinction through germ warfare, the next step in human evolution will be genetic engineering and technology. We will modify ourselves genetically, first to eliminate diseases such as diabetes and cancer and dementia, etc., then we will modify our brains with chemicals and computers, and eventually, in the far future, we will probably become robots that can live an indefinite period of time, slowly and gradually replacing our biological systems with more durable and long-lasting technologies. Our lives will initially be extended by years, then dozens of years, then hundreds of years. Eventually, we may be able to live forever, but now we're in the realm of science fiction, not science, but it's a dream well worth having.


      Presupunand ca nu ne vom distruge cu bombe si nu vom disparea in razboaie biologice, urmatorul pas in evolutia omului va fi tehnologia si ingineria genetica. Ne vom modifica genetic, mai intai pentru a elimina boli precum diabetul si cancerul si dementa etc, apoi ne vom modifica mintile cu produse chimice si computere si, in cele din urma, in viitorul indepartat, vom deveni probabil roboti care pot sa traiasca o perioada nedeterminata de timp, inlocuindu-ne incet si treptat sistemele biologice cu tehnologii mai durabile. Vietile noastre vor fi extinse, initial, cu cativa ani, apoi cu zeci de ani, apoi sute de ani. In cele din urma, am putea fi in stare sa traim vesnic, dar acum suntem pe taramul stiintifico-fantastic, nu al stiintei, dar este un vis pe care merita sa-l avem.
      • Ideolog transumanist? (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 18:01)

        Critic [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Michael Shermer

        Se pare ca Shermer nu e numai iubitor de stiinta dar e un propagandist transumanist. Trebuie spus ca transumanismul este extrem de criticat si uneori ridiculizat in mediile de specialitate (vezi lucrarile unor Andrew Feenberg, Dupuy, Brey, Langdon Winner, Verbeek, Joachim Schummer, George Khushf, Christofor Coenen) si probabil rolul lui pe aici e sa seduca o masa critica de naivi. Mesajul meu pentru ateii evolutionisti responsabili este: Aderand la evolutionism si renuntand si la credinta in Dumnezeu, mai pot refuza transumanismul? Se pare ca domnul Shermer nu. Acum observati fatala inconsistenta in gandirea lui. Vor crede copiii si nepotii nostri ingineriti genetic ca sunt cum sunt datorita evolutiei naturale sau taman datorita designului inteligent? Astfel, in cateva generatii designul inteligent va invinge evolutionismul tocmai datorita unor astfel de propagandisti.
  • questions for Mr Shermer (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 12:51)

    Mihai-G [utilizator]

    Welcome to Romania Dr Shermer

    What do you think about this country in which Darwin's theory was taken out of public schools but where kids study religion for 12 years?

    What should Romanian skeptics, agnostics, atheists etc.. do in a country where priests are paid by the state (i.e. from our money too) and all politicians show off how religious they are and vote to give more money to the church on a constant basis?

    How do you make people value science more than religion?

    Thank you
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:25)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui Mihai-G

      I was appalled to see a Romanian biology textbook for high school. I have a 17 year old daughter who is taking biology this year, and her textbook is light years more advanced than Romanian high school textbooks. Romania needs to upgrade its science education dramatically and immediately, and most importantly it needs to get out of the religion business. If you want religion, GO TO CHURCH. If you want an eduction GO TO SCHOOL. Do not mix church and school. Do not mix religion and education. Romania will forever be mired in a medieval existence as a pseudo-theocracy with religious indoctrination similar to what students received centuries ago before the rise of science.


      Am fost stupefiat cand am vazut un manual de biologie romanesc, pentru liceu. Am o fata de 17 ani care urmeaza cursuri de biologie anul acesta, iar manualul ei este cu mii de ani lumina mai avansat decat manualele de liceu din Romania. Romania are nevoie sa-si imbunatateasca dramatic si imediat educatia stiintifica si, cel mai important, trebuie sa iasa din sectorul religiei. Daca vreti religie, MERGETI LA BISERICA. Daca vreti educatie, MERGETI LA SCOALA. Nu amestecati scoala si biserica. Nu amestecati religia si educatia. Romania va fi impotmolita mereu intr-o existenta medievala ca pseudo-teocratie, cu o indoctrinare religioasa similara cu ceea ce elevii primeau cu secole in urma.

  • intrebare (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 13:02)

    getu [anonim]

    Multi oameni prefera sa ignore rationalul in pofida numeroaselor dovezi si continua sa creada (printre altele) in creationism.
    Unii oameni de stiinta sustin ca creierul uman este 'programat' sa creada intr-o fiinta superioara. Ce credeti despre asta? In caz ca e adevarat, va putea educatia si informarea publicului sa "trateze" acest defect?
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:30)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui getu

      The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, as strong as it is for the big bang theory of the universe, the plate tectonics theory of geology, the heliocentric theory that the earth goes around the sun, and the germ theory of disease. Evolution happened. Deal with it! It's a fact, and no student should be allowed to graduate from a Romanian high school without learning the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

      Our brains evolved to find patterns in nature and to often impose "agency" into those patterns.

      Patternicity: the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise.

      Agenticity: the tendency to believe that the world is inhabited by invisible powerful beings.

      God is a pattern of agency as an explanation for why things happen. And not just God. God is just another form of agency, which includes ghosts, spirits, and other preternatural beings.



      • Thank you for your answer, Mr. Shermer. (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:48)

        getu [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Michael Shermer

        Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, but surprisingly, many refuse to accept this evidence.

        Is or could there be a way to open ignorant people's minds? These parents teach their kids the same ignorant views about the world and universe. Is there a way to break this vicious circle?
  • question (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 13:07)

    unAlterEgo [utilizator]

    If the Darwin theory is true, why doesn't the evolution take place anymore? Why don't we see any undoubtable proofs that the evolution takes place in nature? Species are dissapearing instead of evolving.
    Thanks
    • Evolution does occur today (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 12:57)

      linbetwin [utilizator] i-a raspuns lui unAlterEgo

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

      Evolution still occurs today as it always did, by small changes accumulating over millions of years. The fact that it's not fast enough for us to see dramatic changes doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We don't "see" mountains rising or continents moving, but we know they do. If evolution didn't happen, HIV would be dead by now, along with most viruses.
      • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:34)

        Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui linbetwin

        I agree! Well put.
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:33)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui unAlterEgo

      Evolution is still operating. Humans are still evolving. Genetic research now reveals that blue eyes and blond hair arose only around 6,000 years ago, in Northern Europe, as a result of a single point mutation that then spread because blue eyes and blond hair are genetically linked to lighter skin, which is an adaptation for absorbing Vitamin D from the sun. So, those with lighter skin were better adapted to northern climes, and they also happen to have blue eyes and blond hair. However, it should be noted that in Southern California, where I live, most of the people with blond hair did not evolve it!!!

      Evolutia continua sa opereze. Oamenii continua sa evolueze. Cercetarea genetica dezvalue acum ca ochii albastri si parul blond au aparut in urma cu numai 6000 de ani, in Europa de Nord, ca rezultat al unei mici mutatii care apoi s-a extins, deoarece ochii albastri si parul blond au legatura, genetic, cu pielea deschisa la culoare, care este o adaptare pentru absorbtia de vitamina D sub actiunea soarelui. Deci, oamenii cu piele mai deschisa erau mai bine adaptati climei nordice si s-a intamplat sa aiba ochi albastri si par blond. Totusi, trebuie remarcat ca in California de Sud, unde traiesc, majoritatea oamenilor cu par blond nu au aceasta trasatura in urma evolutiei!!!

  • A few facts - in English (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 13:14)

    m3th0dman [anonim]

    I.
    Since there isn't an intelligent design there isn't a creator, so the first cell must have been made trough abiogenesis.
    Now there are two possible cases:
    1.There are very, very many of coincidences that the conditions on Earth are the exact that are required for living (distance to Sun, gravity, climate & others). Slightest changes and life wouldn’t be possible.
    2.If life adapted itself at the conditions on Earth, why didn't it adapted to the conditions on Mars or Venus?

    II. You have to admit that all modern science is based on empiricism, and all theories respect the scientific method (observation, explanation and testing). But evolutionism doesn't respect the last step (I know it's impossible to test it, it takes milions of years). So for evolutionism you must have faith, like for an religion since it ain't proven.

    III.And the last question: Where did the Universe, and the matter we are all made of and surounds us came from? If există a creator, things are known (not explained), hypotising the fact that there is an infinite amount of time before he apeared.
    I’m sorry for my English, but it isn’t my mother tongue.
    • Response (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 13:12)

      linbetwin [utilizator] i-a raspuns lui m3th0dman

      I. We don't know tha life never existed on Mars or Venus. Maybe it's extinct now. Anyway, life can adapt only to life-supporting conditions. There are hundreds of billions of stars in the universe and many of them have planets orbiting around them. It's very probable to find the right conditions on at least one planet. You don't need a creator for that.

      II. Evolution is tested all the time. Biologists predict that a certain transitional form should have certain characteristics and it should be found in a certain sediment layer, in a certain place on the planet, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY FIND IT. These accurate predictions prove that the theory is correct.

      III. Where did the creator come from? Have you heard about Occam's razor?
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:39)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui m3th0dman

      If there was an Intelligent Designer of life on earth, he wasn't very intelligent! Life is messy and poorly design, cobbled together from parts left over from previous generations and modified over long periods of time.

      It now appears that all stars have planets. There are about 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If only 1% of those stars had planets like our own, that would stilll be 2 billion habitable plantes. If only 1% of those evolved simple life forms, that would still be 2 million planets with life. if only 1% of those planets had intelligent life, that would be 20,000 planets with intelligent life, so Earth and its life is really not all that unlikely. In fact, it is a virtual certainty, given this many stars. And don't forget, there are 100-400 billion galaxies in the cosmos, so surely there are ETs all over the universe.

      Daca a existat un Creator Inteligent al vietii pe pamant, nu a fost foarte inteligent! Viata este alandala si are un design saracacios, incropit din elemente ramase de la generatiile trecute si modificat de-a lungul unor perioade lungi de timp.

      Acum aflam ca toate stelele au planete. Sunt circa 200 de miliarde de stele numai in galaxia noastra. Daca 1% dintre acestea au planete precum a noastra, ar insemna 2 miliarde de planete unde poate exista viata. Daca forme simple de viata au evoluat pe numai 1% dintre acestea, atunci inseamna ca ar exista 2 milioane de planete unde exista viata. Daca numai 1% dintre acestea gazduiesc viata inteligenta, aceasta ar insemna 20.000 de planete cu viata inteligenta, deci Pamantul si viata de pe Pamant nu sunt chiar atat de improbabile. Este, de fapt, o siguranta virtuala, dat fiind numarul mare de stele. Si nu uitati, exista 100-400 de miliarde de galaxii in Cosmos, deci sigur exista extraterestri in intreg universul.


  • Câteva lucruri (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 13:14)

    m3th0dman [anonim]

    În Română:
    I.Din moment ce nu există design inteligent nu există nici un creator, deci prima celulă a apărut prin abiogeneză.
    Acum există două cazuri posibile:
    1.Există foarte, foarte multe coincidenţe astfel încât condiţiile pe Terra sunt exact aceleaşi care sunt nevoite pentru viaţă (distanţa faţă de Soare, gravitaţie, climă, ş.a.). Mici variaţii şi viaţa n-ar mai fi fost posibilă.
    2.Dacă viaţa s-a adaptat însăşi condiţiilor de pe Terra, de ce nu s-a adaptat condiţiilor de pe Marte sau Venus?

    II. Trebuie să admiteţi că ştiinţa modernă se bazează pe emirism şi că toate teoriile respectă metoda ştiinţifică (observare, explicare şi testare). Dar evoluţionismul nu respectă ultimul pus (ştiu că este imposibil testul său, durează milioane de ani). Deci pentru evoluţionism trebuie să ai credinţă ca şi pentru o religie din moment ce nu este demonstrat.

    III.Şi ultimul lucru rămâne. De unde a apărut Universul şi toată materia din care suntem făcuţi şi ne înconjoară? Dacă există un creator, lucrurile sunt cunoscute (nu explicate), ipotezând faptul că a existat un timp infinit până la apariţie Sa.
  • Question for Mr. Michael Shermer (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 13:14)

    Vlad G [anonim]

    What do you say about the Flagellum Bacteria that “evolved” a propulsion system formed from a motor and a propeller? Even Darwin said that if there will be found a complex system that couldn’t be evolved then his theory is wrong. That motor is like a mouse trap, it’s formed by more components, and if you take only one component away then, like the mouse trap, it won’t work. The Darwin’s evolution specifies that only the genes that have a purpose and a function are transmitted further to the new generation of living beings. (note: Darwin didn’t specified genes, because they waren’t discovered yet, but in modern theory genes are asscociated with his theory)

    I believe that there is Intelligent Design in the Universe, but we are not aware of it yet. Just look around and open your eyes. Everything that surrounds us is made by intelligent design.

    Another proof of intelligent design can be found in physics. Let’s take for example the Planck’s constant, if it would be off by only one unit, then the entire Univers that we know would not exist.

    For more info on Flagellum Bacteria visit the link below:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum


    Signed by a sceptic of Darwin’s Theory and also of God and religion.
    • Response (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:40)

      Vlad A [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Vlad G

      1. The flagellum is not even close to what Darwin thought a complex system meant. On the webpage that you provided there exists a plausible explanation. The flagellum probably evolved from cytoscheleton. For more details on how it probably happened read about the process known as exaptation.
      You should isntead be amazed at the complexity of the human brain. It is the most complex thing in the universe, as far as we know.
      2. Do you see intelligent design in a coconut ? How about in the Vermiform appendix ? You can find many examples of the lack of intelligent design both on our planet and in the universe.
      3. The probability of life existing is indeed slim, however the fact that it does doesn't prove the existance of God. In fact the same argument could be used against the existance of God. Also, just like you said if any of the "vital" constants would be "off" by even one unit of measure the Universe that we know would not exist.
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:43)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui Vlad G

      There is no such thing as "the" bacteria flagellum. There are, in fact, many varieties of flagella, some simple and some complex. The three-part flagellum described by creationists as "irreducibly complex" (and therefore "designed") is, in fact, no such thing. It is cobbled together from a much simpler flagellum system in which the parts served multiple functions: secretion of fluids from inside the cell, propulsion through water, securing itself to a substrate. The flagellum evolved for one purpose initially, then co-opted the structure to serve other functions later. This is called exaptation (an "ex adaptation"), which modifies natural selection.


      Nu exista "un" flagel bacterian". Exista, de fapt, numeroase tipuri, unele complexe. Flagelul in trei parti descris de creationisti drept "ireductibil de complex" (deci rezultatul unui design) nu exista asa cum este descris. Este format dintr-un sistem in care partile serveau mai multor functii, precum secretia de fluide din interiorul celulei sau propulsia prin apa. Flagelul a evoluat intr-un singur scop initial, apoi a cooptat structura pentru a servi altor functiuni, ulterior. Acest fenomen se numeste exaptatie.
  • atheism? (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 13:29)

    CIprian [anonim]

    Mr. Shermer,

    Do you know dr. John Lennox and his apology agaginst Ricard Dawings and His book? What is your opinion about his arguments?

    Do you know Henry Morris and his work: The Biblical Basis for modern science? Or Ravi Zacharias, a Christian indian, who explains in his book, Jesus among other gods, why the Christian God is the One and only God? What are your opinion about their arguments?
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:46)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui CIprian

      I know John Lennox and debated him in Australia last year. I found him to be a charming man, but his theology left much to be desired. It was no more sophisticated than that of C.S. Lewis, and his arguments are easily answered, as I did in my own books, How We Believe and The Science of Good and Evil

      I have debated Duane T. Gish, who was Henry Morris' numero uno student. Their arguments are easily debunked, which I have done in my book, Why People Believe Weird Things, which was translated into Romanian and now available here in this country.


      Il cunosc pe John Lennox si am si am avut dezbateri cu el  in Australia, anul trecut. Am descoperit un om cuceritor, dar teologia sa lasa mult de dorit. Nu este mai sofisticata decat cea a lui C.S. Lewis, iar argumentele sale pot primi usor un raspuns, asa cum am facut in cartile mele, "How We Believe" si "The Science of Good and Evil".

      Am avut dezbateri cu Duane T. Gish, studentul "numero uno" al lui Henry Morris. Argumentele lor sunt usor demontabile - ceea ce am si facut in cartea mea, "Why People Believe Weird Things" (De ce cred oamenii in bazaconii), tradusa in romana si disponibila acum in aici, in tara.

  • facts & beliefs (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 13:34)

    Daniel [anonim]

    Dr Shermer,

    Why do you think that pseudo-scientific theories, like the (so-called) Intelligent Design, manage to easily attract followers, despite their flawed and biased logic and their lack of empirical evidence?

    I've read some of your previous opinions on this issue, but I'm intrested in knowing if you think that there's a main cause to this phenomenon (i.e. like rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe).

    Thank you!
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:49)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui Daniel

      I have thoroughly debunked Intelligent Design in my book Why Darwin Matters, which is now being translated into Romanian. It attracts religious followers because it claims that there is an "intelligent designer" who is always presumed to be God. As a marketing label it works because life does seemed designed: wings were designed to fly, eyes were designed to see. The question is who or what was the designer. Before Darwin it was God. After Darwin, it was natural selection.

      The way belief systems work is this: most of us most of the time adopt our beliefs for psychological, social, and emotional reasons. We then rationalize our beliefs with reasons we can find to support them. The belief comes first, the justification after. This is not how science works.


      Am demontat complet Designul Intelligent in cartea mea "Why Darwin Matters", pe cale sa fie tradusa in limba romana. Teoria atrage adepti religiosi deoarece pretinde ca exista un "designer intelligent", care se presupune ca este Dumnezeu. Ca eticheta de marketing, functioneaza deoarece viata pare rezultatul unui design: aripi concepute pentru zbor, ochi conceputi pentru vedere. Intrebarea este cine sau ce este acel designer. Inainte de Darwin, era Dumnezeu. Dupa Darwin, a fost selectia naturala.

      Felul in care functioneaza sistemele de credinta este urmatorul: cei mai multi dintre noi, cel mai adesea, adoptam credinte din motive psihologice, sociale si emotionale. Apoi le rationalizam, apelam la argumente care sa le sprijine. Credinta apare mai intai, justificarea ulterior. Nu asa functioneaza stiinta.


  • Intelligent Design? (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 13:38)

    gigi [anonim]

    If the Intelligent Design is correct and the Universe had a Creator ... who do you think created the Creator? :)
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:51)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui gigi

      I don't think ID is correct. The universe may not have had a creator. It might have created itself, or it may have erupted from another universe. We just don't know. But in any case, if a creator created the universe, then who created the creator? If the creator is that which does not need to be created, then why can't the universe be that which does not need to be created. God. Universe. These are just words.


      Nu cred ca teoria Designului Inteligent este corecta. S-ar putea ca universul sa nu fi avut un creator. Se poate sa se fi creat singur, sau sa fi erupt dintr-un alt univers. Nu stim. In orice caz, daca un creator a creat universul, atunci cine l-a creat pe creator? Daca acel creator entitatea care nu are nevoie sa fie creata, atunci de ce nu poate universul sa fie acel lucru care nu are nevoie sa fie creat? Dumnezeu. Univers. Acestea sunt doar cuvinte.
  • a couple of questions... (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 13:57)

    radu [anonim]

    1. Anyone who knows anything about the scientific community should know that the simple fact that creationists don't publish anything in any respected journal makes their theories baloney. Could you do the job in their place and imagine a scenario in which creationism could be proven? What kind of information should we expect?

    2. Surprinsingly, many evolutionists still use the word "darwinist". Shouldn't we get rid of it? Evolution today is pretty different than 150 years ago, but the thing that bothers me most about it is the way creationists use it as if Darwin is atheist's cult leader and "Origin of the species" is our Bible.

    Thanks a lot and enjoy your stay!
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:55)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui radu

      What would it take to prove the existence of a creator? A large cash deposit (say $100 million dollars) in a Swiss bank account in my name! (with apologies to Woody Allen!)

      Seriously, it would be difficult to prove the existence of a supernatural creator, because what would that look like in a natural worldview like science? That is, if we discovered that, say, DNA was intelligently designed, wouldn't you want to know how God created DNA? Did she use RNA? If so, how is that different from the evolution of life without a creator?

      The theory of evolution stands on its own regardless of the "Darwin" name. I agree, let's not make this a cult of personaltiy. Had Darwin not discovered evolution by natural selection it would have been someone else. In fact, that someone was Alfred Russel Wallace, who published his theory at the same time as Darwin. The theory does not stand or fall based on one man named Darwin.


      De ce ar fi nevoie pentru a demonstra existenta unui creator? O suma mare (sa zicem 100 de milioane de dolari) intr-un cont la o banca elvetiana, pe numele meu! (cu scuze pentru Woody Allen!)

      Acum, serios, ar fi dificil de demonstrat existenta unui creator supranatural - cum ar arata el dintr-o perspectiva naturala asupra lumii, cum este stiinta? Daca am descoperi, sa zicem, ca ADN-ul este rezultatul unui design inteligent, nu ati vrea sa stiti cum a creat Dumnezeu ADN-ul? A folosit ARN? Daca da, cum se diferentiaza acest lucru de evolutia vietii fara un creator?

      Teoria evolutiei se sustine singura indiferent de numele "Darwin". Sunt de acord, nu trebuie sa facem un cult al personalitatii. Daca Darwin nu ar fi descoperit evolutia prin selectie naturala, ar fi facut-o altcineva. De fapt, acel cineva a fost Alfred Russel Wallace, care a publicat teoria sa in acelasi timp cu Darwin. Teoria nu se sustine si nu cade din cauza unui singur om numit Darwin.

  • despre viata si alegeri (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 14:49)

    Gheorghe V. [anonim]

    Dr Shermer,

    Stiti cumva vreo explicatie pentru aparitia vietii? Cum din ceva ne-viu si care nu se poate reproduce, a "aparut" ceva viu si care se reproduce?

    Din moment ce teoria evolutionista nu a fost definitiv si indubitabil demonstrata, nu credeti ca adeptii ei, si ateisti in general, sunt tot niste credinciosi? Unii aleg sa creada in Dumnezeu, altii aleg sa creada ca Dumnezeu nu exista. E doar o optiune pe care o face fiecare.

    P.S. Ar fi interesant de facut un interviu cu Darwin, sa ne spuna el de pe lumea cealalta cum stau lucrurile si daca nu cumva si-a revizuit teoria intre timp :)
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:58)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui Gheorghe V.

      There are half a dozen viable theories for the origins of life: on the surface of the oceans, deep in the oceans, in thermal vents, on ice, in subterranean blocks of rock under high pressure, etc. This is a lively and viable science and we'll see where the evidence leads us as the experiments are run.

      But in any case, the answer "God did it" is no answer at all. It doesn't explain "how" god did it, or where and when she did it. "God" is just a linguistic place holder for "unknown." It explains nothing.


      Exista numeroase teorii viabile privind originea vietii: la suprafata oceanelor, in adancul oceanelor, pe gheata etc. Aceasta este o stiinta vie si viabila si vom vedea unde ne vor duce dovezile pe masura ce au loc experimente.

      Dar, in orice caz, raspunsul "Dumnezeu a facut-o" nu este un raspuns. Nu expica felul cum a facut acest lucru Dumnezeu, sau unde si cand. "Dumnezeu" este doar un termen lingvistic pentru "necunoscut". Nu explica nimic.

    • Ce doresti, de fapt? (Joi, 10 septembrie 2009, 16:16)

      aura [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Gheorghe V.

      Sa vezi cu ochii tai cum din materie nevie apare viata? Se poate face, cu conditia sa traiesti cam 1 miliard de ani.
      Teoria evolutionista nu a fost demonstrata? Ce ar fi o demonstratie pt. tine? Doar cea pe care am mentionat-o mai sus, cred... Toate dovezile converg in acest sens.
      Eu te cred, ca pt. tine, format ca crestin, orice sistem intelectual e o credinta oarba, dar nu e adevarat.
      Faptul ca tu alegi sa crezi, e treaba ta si nimeni nu ti-o poate interzice, atat timp cat nu incerci sa impui credinta ta si altora, ceea ce este inadmisibil.
      Cat despre Darwin, adu-l tu "de dincolo" si atunci mai vorbim. Pana atunci, scuteste-ne de acest argument ridicol.
  • policy makers vs believers (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 15:22)

    Adrian [anonim]

    Dr Shermer, congratulations for being a skeptic, more so for questioning the pseudo-scientific arguments of ‘intelligent design’ perpetrators. Personally, I accept the scientists’ evidence and rationale as to the evolution of the species, the age of the universe and so on. (Although I dare presume something mysterious happened at the last step of the evolution, when the modern human being emerged.) The reluctance to accept such argumentation is, as you say, psychologically interpretable.
    Arguably, political and financial interests support all this “religious” misunderstanding of the issue. I think it’s wrong that official Christian dogma does not embrace reasonable interpretations regarding world creation and it seems like pure politics and manipulation.
    In such perspective, do you see yourself as part of a political clash? As a reactionary to the mainstream ideologists struggling to keep a grip on their followers? Don’t you ever feel that you are in slippery sands questioning individual belief rather than ideologies? Do you think the sociological and political implications of the creationist theory are also to be considered and to what extent?
    Thank you and God bless!
    • From Shermer (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 15:01)

      Michael Shermer [hotnews.ro] i-a raspuns lui Adrian

      I'm not a reactionary! Evolutionary theory is as mainstream and noncontroversial as you can get--within science. My views on evolution are not in the least bit reactionary, compared to scientists. Where I'm a challenging people is on their ideological interference with science. Keep religion out of the science business. Keep religion out of the politics business. If you want relgion, GO TO CHURCH. If you want science, GO TO SCHOOL. It's that simple!


      Nu sunt un reactionar! Teoria evolutionista este consacrata si lipsita de controverse, ca parte a stiintei. Perspectivele mele asupra evolutiei nu sunt deloc reactionare, comparativ cu cele ale oamenilor de stiinta. Eu ii provoc pe oameni pe tema interferentei lor ideologice cu stiinta. Tineti religia departe de stiinta. Tineti religia departe de politica. Daca doriti religie, MERGETI LA BISERICA. Daca vreti stiinta, MERGETI LA SCOALA. E foarte simplu!
      • school is a place to learn (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 15:34)

        Aurel [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Michael Shermer

        School is a place where every one shall be able to add knowledge besides the one gathered around the home. That means school shall initiate its students to both theories (evolutionism and creationism) and letting each student find out information from both sides not only from a single one.
        Let each one of us put our brain to work and leave the freedom to each individual to find out which theory is more suitable to him.
  • Prejudices (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 15:31)

    george [anonim]

    1. Information is not intrinsic to matter or energy, but only carried by it. Do you know any phenomenon in nature that creates information out of nothing? If not, please explain how a 6Gbit (3 mld nucleotides) information-full DNA storage medium appeared in the time passed from the alleged Big-Bang. That's the human DNA. So we start with an informationless Big-Bang and end up now, with a tremendous amount of unexplained information. Please name a real observed phenomenon that can be studied and repeated, not a hypothesized one. If you cannot, then please remember to be sceptic to an evolution theory that cannot exist without such a fenomenon. Please be honest to yourself and others!

    2. Do sceptics have scientific prejudices? Are they equally inclined to be skeptic on either side of the balance scale? Is anybody?

    3. Do you realise that neither evolutionism nor creationism can be demonstrated? Both build their case using the same evidence available from the past and present scientific discoveries. Still, both start from unprovable presuppositions as premises. Creationism is based on religious belief, evolutionism is based on materialistic philosophy (which is no better than religion as a science fundation). Now compare them both with experimental (operational) science that deals with phenomenons that can be observed and repeated. You will see that operational science is different. It is based on scientific method, that's why we see all the technological progress around us.
    • BRAVO! (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 16:31)

      amazing [anonim] i-a raspuns lui george

      Very good point(s) of view...
      The evolutionists are as bigots as the Inquisition. Or even worse..
      • hmm (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 18:11)

        lol [anonim] i-a raspuns lui amazing

        Mrs amazing, your arguments are a perfect example of logic and reason :).
        Btw, if you really want to see a bigot you should try looking in a mirror.
      • you are missinformed (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 18:19)

        gigel [anonim] i-a raspuns lui amazing

        Can you name at least one creationist theory that is supported by empirical evidence ? No ! Because they are just are rare as pink flying unicorns :) . Without any proof, doesn't their claims sound like scientific imposture?

        There's only one side that offers physical proof to support their arguments: the scientists. And any reasonable person can see that.
  • Prejudecati (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 16:13)

    George [anonim]

    Traducerea in romana:

    1. Informatia nu este intrinseca materiei sau energiei, ci doar reprodusa in ele. Cunoasteti vreun fenomen in natura care creeaza informatie din nimic? Daca nu, explicati cum a aparut un mediu de stocare ADN de 6 Gbiti (3 miliarde de nucleotide) plin cu informatie in timpul scurs de la presupusul Big-Bang. Este vorba despre ADN-ul uman. Asadar plecam de la un Big-Bang lipsit de informatie si ajungem in prezent, la o cantitate imensa de informatie neexplicata. Numiti un fenomen real si observabil, care poate fi studiat si repetat, nu unul ipotetic. Daca nu puteti, va rog sa nu uitati sa fiti sceptic fata de o teorie a evolutiei care nu poate exista fara un asemenea fenomen. Fiti sincer cu dumneavoastra si ceilalti!

    2. Au scepticii prejudecati? Sunt ei inclinati in mod egal sa fie sceptici de ambele parti ale balantei? Este cineva?

    3. Va dati seama ca nici evolutionismul si nici creationismul nu pot fi demonstrate? Ambele isi construiesc cazul folosind aceleasi dovezi provenind din descoperirile stiintifice din trecut si prezent. Totusi, ambele au ca premize presupuneri care nu pot fi dovedite. Creationismul este bazat pe credinta religioasa, evolutionismul pe filosofie materialistica (si care nu este mai buna ca religia pe post de fundament al unei teorii stiintifice). Comparati-le cu stiinta experimentala (operationala), care se ocupa cu fenomene care pot fi observate si repetate. Veti vedea ca stiinta operationala este diferita. Este fundamentata pe metoda stiintifica, de aceea vedem tot progresul tehnologic care ne inconjoara.
  • questions (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 16:26)

    Alexandru Cioaca [anonim]

    1. What is your opinion on theosophy?

    2. Are skeptics ready to assimilate new discoveries as, let's say, string theory, once they are proven scientifically (LHC)?
  • the best (non)religion (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 16:35)

    peter193710 [anonim]

    Dear Dr. Shermer,

    In case we admit that the world's religions have evolved, the natural trend seems to be an continuos decrease of the number of gods. We had in this are polytheistic (the Greek religion was really excellent!), monotheistic religions (very trendy today) and zerotheism (call it atheism if you wish). But is this a final point? The late Arthur C. Clarke used to say: "It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.”
    This means that the evolution of religions will continue- the next step is a religion with a negative
    number of gods- gods missing, to be replaced by super-humans- with god-like virtues and abilities.
    It is said that we are gods in technology,
    but it is not quite true yet. I believe that the religion of the future is negatheism. Atheism still has an (1) excedentary god. What do you think?
    I fear that if we will not follow this natural path,
    this century will be remembered as the XIIth century resurrected -with the figures (12->21) inverted pro-forma. But the same ideology and thinking.
    Therefore a new religion, negatheism is necessary. I hope you will join it.
  • intrebari (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 17:09)

    tahmeena [anonim]

    Sunteti de acord ca stiinta si religia sunt dimensiuni distincte ale spiritului uman si ca nu ar trebui tratate in acelasi plan? Ca argumentul religios nu trebuie adus in dezbaterea stiintifica, si nici invers?

    In afara chestiunii religiei, e posibil ca designul sa fie atat de inteligent incat sa nu poata fi teoretizat, cel putin nu cu instrumentele stiintifice si intelectuale de care dispunem acum; inteleg ca teoria designului inteligent nu sta in piciare. E un motiv suficient ca sa expediem si ideea de disign inteligent?

    multumesc
  • The Aquatic Ape hypothesis (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 17:24)

    nea vasile [utilizator]

    The Aquatic Ape hypothesis says humans went through an aquatic or semi-aquatic stage in our evolution and that this accounts for many features seen in human anatomy and physiology. Using the principle of convergent evolution, it says that life in an aquatic environment explains these features, and that a transition from ape to hominid in a non-aquatic environment cannot.
    What is your opinion on this subject and why it never got much support from the scientific community?
  • here's my question (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 17:36)

    major_ballsack [utilizator]

    Hello Mr. Shermer, thank you for meeting us on Hotnews.ro!

    It seems to me that this type of debate is not very effective at changing people's minds.

    I would have thought that intelligent, open-minded, educated people naturally follow the scientific way of thinking about life on Earth, hence evolution. Hard to believe they would ever be convinced to believe in the theory of intelligent design, because, as you say, it's magic, and because it provides no useful answers.

    On the other hand, I would expect that a lot of people who have been religiously indoctrinated, particularly from young ages, would feel very strongly against the idea of evolutionism because it contradicts their core religious beliefs, i.e. that God made us and implicitly that God exists. I don't see them changing their minds either.

    And then I expect there's the large majority, somewhere in between, who doesn't really care either way.

    I understand you fight the good fight and it's certainly useful to keep the light of reason simply because the alternative is dire, but do you feel you can actually change anybody's mind?

    I know little of your activity and suspect that campaigning for scientific education in schools is a part of it, given that it's probably far more effective to raise people into scientific reasoning rather than debate them into it, so can you tell us any insights on how to get science - not religion - into our own biology classes?
  • Skepticism is a a religion? (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 18:01)

    Radu [anonim]

    Skepticism is a a religion?
    I have this question because I see many similiarites.
    Both of them are based on the faith because can't be proved 100% experimental.
    Both of them have "preachers". Between your confereces and Ravi Zacharias or Billy Graham sermons are many similiarites.
    Both of them have proselytes... have doctrinar brochures and so on. (Skeptic magazine and Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower are very similar)
    Am I wrong in my assumptions?
  • question (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 18:12)

    eu [anonim]

    Mr. Shermer,

    First let me state my interest in your answer for major_ballsack's question, perhaps this reenforcement will provide additional reason for you to include it among the ones you will choose to answer.

    My question is somewhat similar to his/hers. As a skeptic/atheist myself, I am doing my best to explain this attitude to those around me, but I have little to no success. In your experience, what have you found as being most effective in truly convincing people to give up long-established faith in God or even - more simply - belief in various baloney they hear? (A baloney example I often encounter: people in Romania often tend to consider antibiotics as a "cure all" drug, regardless of whether they suffer of a bacterial or viral infection. As a consequence, a lot of people insist on taking antibiotics indiscriminately. I can explain to them about placebo or "yeah, but it you give it 5 days without antibiotics, it will work just as well" to no end; they agree but then go on doing this as if the conversation never took place.)
  • my question (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 19:02)

    io [anonim]

    I'm sure you've heard this question a million times before, I'm sure there's even a theory about it that I don't know of but here goes: what's wrong with accepting evolutionsim as simply a tool of creation?

    To clarify: I don't believe in intelligent design, I think it's simply not true, because the world looks like a mess more than anything else and we have things like the law of entropy telling us things tend towards disorder rather than order. So that's clear.

    But why does evolutionism exclude the existence of God, be it in any form. Of course, not the human-like God taken literally from the Bible that supposedly teleported humans on Earth but simply a form of superior power/energy etc which, through means/mechanisms like evolution and others has a certain form of control on things ?

    Why would evolutionism and such a form of generalized creationism, if you will, necessarily exclude each other ?
  • why "versus" between Evolution and Creation? (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 19:38)

    radu [anonim]

    short intro: philosopher Tutea said something like this:
    everyone is right:
    - those who believe that they are created by God, are right and are created by God
    - thos who believe they descend from monkeys are also right, and are descending from monkeys
    :)

    but indeed, the real question is:
    Q1: why put a "versus" between evolution and creation ?

    Q2: can science demonstrate that something does not exist?

    Q3: can a blind man convince one that sees that actually the latter is not seeing?

    in my oppinion, for Q1: both Evolution and Creation exist, without a reasonable doubt, and do not exclude each other.. on the contrary, they complement each other!!
    Evolution creates new patterns, and, evolution, as mechanism was created, just as well as other mechanisms of our micro/macro univers were created.
    It is a problem of chicken and egg.. which one was the first?
    One could simply say that Men were created by God, indirectly, by creating the mechanisms of evolution. However, Orthodox, as well as other religions state that God is not passive, but active both at micro and macro levels, ever since He created our universe. Thus, they explain with God's work the complexity of todays bio-system when compared with the limitation of evolution.

    my opinion on q2:
    On the other side, science cannot demonstrate that something does not exists (particle, or God), simply because the domain of subject is infinite. To demonstrate scientifically that 1 element is not in your domain, you must check all elements of the domain, which is not possible in a infinite one..
    Believing is a mystical path, not a scientific one... so, why expecting that science will prove the non-existance of God?
  • We need some action and protest (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 20:53)

    Costin [anonim]

    First of all I would remind you that Romania is among the few countries that sustain creationism in schools (including in Biology classes!) and, in the condition in which the education system is still predominantly state-owned, the Governement continues to give more and more money to churches than to schools. And this happens despite the fact that all cities are already filled with churches which occupied former parks and children playgrounds, and priests have big state-slaries and restituted properties (which the Church owned in medieval times, when Church was not separated from State). In the same time many intellectuals and business people desperately continue to show great respect to church, and disrespect to education. My question is: What forms of actions and protest do you suggest for animating the Romanian society and pushing the investors and politcians to show more interest and give funds to science and education rather than to mysticism and church building across the nation?
  • Stimate Skeptic Shermer (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 21:28)

    Eneas [anonim]

    va rog sa imi raspundeti la urmatoarele intrebari :
    1.Cum explica evolutionismul situatia sudden appearance and stasis -fara exceptie intilnita in natura si in milioanele de fosile colectate in tip pe Terra !
    2. Ce a fost mai intai dupa Darwin:oul sau gaina sau ,de ce nu ,bunicul sau !
    3. Legile termodinamicii sunt in conflict cu teoria evolutiei! cum comentati :trebuie sa renuntam la legile fizicii sau trebuie sa renuntam la teoria lui Darwin?!
    4.fara sa fim creationisti ,deoarece nu credem in povesti ,putem tot asa , sa nu fim evolutionisti deoarece nu credem in povesti? stiinta este datoare inca cu descoperirea originii vietii si cu originea speciilor,nu credeti ?
    • va rog o ultima intrebare: (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 22:10)

      Eneas [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Eneas

      Nu considerati vulgar sa se propage in media stiintifica o teorie tip poveste SF a meteoritului pe care scria "Moarte dinozaurilor !" care ar fi cazut in golful Mexic omorand selectiv doar dinozaurii planetei ? considerati ca suntem luati de prea simpli pentru nu ne prezenta deocamdata nici o ipoteza cu privire la disparitia dinozaurilor ,pana la certitudine ?
  • Evolution and atheism (Marţi, 8 septembrie 2009, 22:36)

    Mihai Bucur [utilizator]

    I am absolutely convinced that the modern theory of evolution (i.e. Darwin plus genetics) has huge explanatory power and I am absolutely convinced that it would be a crime against reason not to teach it in schools. But I also believe that many people can happily hold contradictory beliefs or contrive (more or less ilogically) a compromise between their beliefs originating from science and their religious beliefs and that this makes them more comfortable psychologically. So, why insist on linking evolutionism to atheism? And don't you think that any aggressive atheistic propaganda like Dawkins' is a counterproductive pompous endeavour and indeed a real nuisance?
  • future human evolution (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 1:17)

    gigel123 [utilizator]

    Dr Shermer,

    Considering that:
    - certain factors like technologies, culture, etc have protected us (to a great extent) from the selective pressures that drive evolution
    - there are virtually no significant groups of isolated humans

    ==> do you think that humans have stopped evolving?
  • enemies of reason (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 1:47)

    Max [anonim]

    Mr M. Shermer, Welcome to Romania!

    ... Do you consider religious concepts masquerading as genuine science ... the so called "creation science" ... to be a threat to real science ? How popular are such theories in the US ?
  • Support for freedom of expression? (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 9:27)

    SoriN [anonim]

    Dear Sir,

    Would you like to support/assist to build a skeptic association in Romania?
  • intelligent agent (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 9:54)

    gogu [anonim]

    1. It looks like there are 2 kinds of evolution (Evolution-A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form): a kind of evolution that involve an intelligent agent (human mind): evolution of cars, planes, ships, hardware, software (similar with DNA evolution, isn’t it?), and a kind of evolution that doesn’t involve an intelligent agent: the evolution of species (the evolution of DNA/RNA). Do you have another example of evolution that doesn’t involve an intelligent agent?
    2. Without creating a single living organism from inorganic substances and without creating a single new specie, how can evolutionism pretend to be true?
  • organism shape (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 10:35)

    Ovi [anonim]

    What do you think that gives the shape of a living organism?
  • Creation AND evolution (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 10:48)

    DanS [anonim]

    Dear Mr. Shermer,

    Could you please define what skepticism means to you and how does it manifest itself in relation to the concepts of creation and evolution?

    Do you see a fundamental contradiction between creation and evolution? Are they mutually exclusive?

    What do you think about the theory that the Big Bang represents the moment of creation but from then on, evolution is what happened?

    Should we also talk about what or who was the stimulus that led to the creation moment?

    Thank you for participating in this discussion.

    Warm regards,
    Dan S.
  • life&death (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 11:12)

    Ovi [anonim]

    How can you define an alive cell and one that died?
    How can you explain that in human body (for example) there are cells that die even if they have all living conditions available?
    Which is the diference in a cell one second before it dies and one second after it died?
  • molecular machine (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 11:24)

    Ovi [anonim]

    An alive cell works like a molecular machine.
    What do you think that coordinates all activities into a cell?
    For example what moves a protein from "production place" (ribosome) to "assembly place (for example cell membrane)?
    How is this mechanism possible?
  • question (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 11:51)

    anonim [anonim]

    Dear Mr Shermer

    As a psychologist, do you think it is necessary to convince all the people to get rid of their beliefs in a supernatural being, even those people who strongly need such a belief to address their fears or their need for a purpose in life?
    In my opinion, intelligent design is not a credible theory in biology, since it is based on too many unproven assumptions. Nevertheless, I think it is a useful tool for those people (who are not scientists) who want to preserve their faith, notwithstanding the growing number of evidence (fossils, etc.) that show that a literal interpretation of the Bible (Genesis, in particular) is not possible any longer.
    Why not let these people go on in believing? Why not let them say: Okay, there is no scientific evidence that the world was created by God, but, nevertheless, I like to believe that God created the world and established a mechanism through which the species evolved from the beginning until today.
    I would not even oppose the idea that children are taught in schools (since this is the great debate in the US) that the main, most coherent and credible theory explaining the evolution of life is natural selection, but, since it cannot be proven as being 100% correct, there is also a hypothesis, based on a religious assumption, that life might have a creator.
  • query (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 12:06)

    Zexe [anonim]

    Hello,

    Can one be a skeptic and at the same time be skeptic about one's skepticism.

    tks
    • intuitia?! (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 12:36)

      atreus [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Zexe

      Am si eu o problema: sunt de acord cu ateismul (fiind eu insumi ateu) dar ma intreb in ce masura este posibil in viata de zi cu zi sau chiar in viata abstracta a cercetatorului stiintific sa avem de fiecare data raspunsuri clare la intrebarile pe care le punem. Ma gandesc aici si la faptul ca de-a lungul istoriei oamenii au avut obiceiul sa puna intrebari stupide (de exemplu care este viteza si pozitia unui electron la un anumit moment de timp, cu referire la mecanica cuantica). Asadar, credeti ca este posibil sa avem in fiecare moment un singur raspuns clar la orice problema ne punem? Este practic eficient sa asteptam pana in momentul in care avem toate datele cu privire la o problema? In ce masura intuitia ne ajuta in a lua decizii corecte inainte de a putea spune ca dispunem de toate datele?
      Va multumesc,
  • intelligent design (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 12:18)

    Mowgli [utilizator]

    despre lucrurile despre care nu se stie nimic, nu se poate afirma nimic. Mecanica cretiei universului ramane o enigma pentru om iar orice teorie pe marginea acestei teme ramane la grad de supozitie.
    Vizavi de designul inteligent, scepticul scepticului ar propune urmatorul exemplu: Inchipuiti-va o fiinta inteligenta si un computer foarte mare. Fiinta inteligenta programeaza pe acel computer un joc, foarte complex, extrem de complex, cu reguli foarte complexe si consistente, asemenea jocurilor de pe calculatoarele noatre dar de o complexitate mult mai mare. Asa cum creierul nostru este capabil de constiinta si personajele acelui joc au un design suficient de complex incat sunt capabile sa dezvolte constiinta si inteligenta proprie. Evident personajele din acel joc conceput de acea fiinta inteligenta nu au acces la lumea exterioara jocului, intregul univers al personajelor din joc este jocul insasi si nimic mai mult. De dragul evolutionismului putem presupune ca acea fiinta inteligenta a proiectat aparitia vietii printr-un mecanism evolutionist, desi orice alt mecanism consistent cu regulile jocului este la fel de bun. Ce credeti ca vor crede personajele inteligente din joc despre lumea lor, ca lumea are un design inteligent sau vor gasi evolutionismul ca si explicatie ultima pentru existenta lor in lume?
  • Skeptic about being skeptic. (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 12:38)

    Alex [anonim]

    Welcome to Romania Dr Shermer.

    I have seen some documentaries or debates having you as guest and most of the times you left me with the impression that either you don’t believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life or that 98 percent of the evidence is fake.
    Still you say that human life on earth may be the result of extraterrestrial intervention. If they manipulated our genetics isn’t it normal that they check on us from time to time?(Meaning that maybe more than 2% of proof is real).Especially since we have something like 6000 years of history (not that much) that means they may as well be around, probably trying to help us avoid a nuclear annihilation, a test that most advanced civilizations must pass?
    There’s always the question who was the first civilization that influenced others (DNA manipulation or other means) and how did they got there?(evolution, creation)
    Finding the answer for us may offer a glimpse of their history. Finding an answer doesn’t mean that it implicitly applies to us. Can you please speculate on the origin of the ‘first’ civilization?

    Thank you for your time!
  • kids (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 13:04)

    d [anonim]

    What should a parent tell to his child when he/she ask him about God, and about the origin of Man? And what should tell when the child says that uncle X or aunt Y or a neighbor, or a teacher, or a friend told him that God do exist and those who don't believe will burn in hell?
  • vesnicie (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 13:26)

    Bogdan Anghel [anonim]

    Stimate Domn, sa presupunem ca exista un design inteligent ca a stat la baza aparitiei noastre ca fiinte omenesti si care implica o fiinta superioara pe care o vom denumi Dumnezeu. Daca fiinta aceasta s-a relevat prin creatie si prin cuvantul oamenilor placuti Lui, si daca se precizeaza ca exista o vesnicie in pedeapsa pentru cei care nu au crezut in El si una in rasplata pentru cei care au crezut si au facut ce a spus El, atunci intrebarea mea este: unde veti ajunge Dvs.? Multumesc anticipat de raspuns.
  • Steven Pinker (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:12)

    Silviu Puchianu [anonim]

    What is your opinion regarding Pinker's assertion that we are mostly Nature and very little Nurture?
  • Imposing theories (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:26)

    Aurel [anonim]

    Mr Michael Shermer you suggest that state should not impose religion on people, especially on children until they're teens.
    Do you think same restriction shall be applied when talking about the Darwin's evolutionary theory as well?
    • of course not (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 16:55)

      Daniel [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Aurel

      of course not, evolution is a fact. Facts must be thought in schools. Opinions and faith based assertions, however, should not.
      • evolution is still not fully demonstrated (Joi, 10 septembrie 2009, 17:14)

        Aurel [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Daniel

        Unfortunately evolution is still a theory. Scientists experienced on the fermentation fly known for it's short lifecycle (8-15 days) and could not see any evolution but different mutations that did not survive to next generation.
        There are also big questions on how woodpecker tongue get evolved without these birds dying.
        Not answered questions like:
        - why do water mammals did 'not' adapt to water breathe, and why did they 'move' the nose from front face to the top of their body.
        - how come that only dinosaurs died while other livings did not
        - why do we still primates? According to evolution they should have been humans by now

        Please note that each species may have mutations.
        None of the mutations gave birth to brand new species.

        Noone saw the evolution take place, as it is claimed it takes millions of years.

        All of these make one to have faith to believe evolution. Can you point me out an evolution event taking place nowadays under our sight?
        Any fact to be observable?
  • The "skeptic" religion (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:26)

    Friend [anonim]

    Sir,
    You seem to be a believer yourself, a bigot of science - which is your religion. Whenever something ab-normal happens, your attitude / strong belief is "this is not paranormal" and "this does not show there is God" and "there is a scientific explanation, that just hasn't been found yet". This is all very good, and I grant you a 99.(99)% probability for that, according to our experience as humans, but where is the actual proof that you are always looking for - in all pretended "paranormal" cases? Shouldn't you leave room for doubt - even if infinitesimal?
  • a skeptic Christmas (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:42)

    razvan [anonim]

    what does a skeptic do on Christmas or Easter?
  • Q (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 14:54)

    The_Skeptic_Romanian [anonim]

    My statement: Masses of people are too stupid. Simply they love to proliferate idiot religions during the centuries. I mean all the Christians are also included in this world wide contagious stupidity. They won the time proof argument, even if they are stupid san primitive in their approach.
    All logical arguments are anyway futile for them.
    They prefer to think that a very wise and complicated creature called God appear from nothing and this is their creator from NOTHING.
    He created them as pets or anyway it forgot to explain their purpose, and why they humans are consider to be -chosen- as better and preferred pet creature among all other creatures within this Earth? The life after death is the idiot hope that is motivating the believers and the fear to end in hell.
    They imagine a God as a wonderful and very practical designer, but in the end this God is impotent in establishing a single religion on Earth and fail to communicate with most of its subjects. I mean really how stupid can you be to call this a belief?


    Questions:
    1. The creation believes have a lot of power and influence on Earth. How do you faith them back when you see they completely do not consider your logical arguments, your doubts and your scientific knowledge?
    2. My unfortunate bet is that anyway you can not change their beliefs during your life time, so what is your aim in life ..?


    Thanks and I wish you success!
    The_Skeptic_Romanian.
  • Questions (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 15:04)

    LinkZ [anonim]

    1) How evolution created (without purpose !) the miriad of very complex and beautiful living beings around us ?

    2) How that after all the diggings the "missing link" is still missing ?

    3) How the insects evolved ?

    4) Why the majority of fossils show us just small (if any) differences vs. the living beings (see this: http://www.fossil-museum.com/)

    5) Do you "believe" in ETI (aliens) ? (like Richard Dawkins expressed into his Expeled interview)

    6) How such a smart encoding like DNA "emerged" ?
  • consciousness (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 15:06)

    calin [anonim]

    1. How do you see the evolution of human (and/or animal) consciousness ?

    2. Would you define crystals and other self-reproducing/growing minerals as alive ? If yes, do you have anything to comment about their evolution (past, present and future) ?
  • Just a few points... (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 15:23)

    Free Face [anonim]

    1. Do you think that the real education is done in schools in USA ? The real science is done in the universities, and most of the students come from either China, and of course eastern Europe countries like Romania, Russia, etc.; amazingly, they are very well educated, even with their outdated textbooks!
    2. I would like to see a response to what George has said; the basic theory is that you cannot produce information out of nothing; there are a LOT of serious studies made that will contradict Darwin's theory (www.answersingenesis.org); As a computer scientist, YES, I believe in creation and in an intelligent design.
    Hotnews, when you are going to invite someone from this side as well ?
    3. What do you think of Jesus and isn't the materialist view of the world a religion itself ?
  • Just a remark (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 15:36)

    Razvan [anonim]

    One of our greatest intellectuals of the last century, Nicu Steinhardt, a jew who became a christian monk after atheist-communist persecution (wich implies torture, imprisonment and some other nice things like this), wrote that he didn't actually deny Darwin's theory.

    For him it was stupid to deny the fact that, in the embryonal stage, the humans go through all the evolutionary scale - from the least evolved celullar being to the acme of evolution, the human that is.

    This doesn't prove the non-existence of God because for Steinhardt a chimp, or another primate, is just warm water, while the human being is steaming hot. I tend to agree with Steinhardt .
  • More questions (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 15:36)

    LinkZ [anonim]

    1) How the dolphins & co "evolved" their nose from the front of the face (as their earth mammals "parents") on the top of the head (water mammals) ... without any trace in the fossils ?

    2) If the evolution theory is so establish and proven ... why all the campains to "de-evangelize" people (like ANTI-GOD buses) are needed ?

    3) Why there are still advanced/used into the curriculum the old-known fakes like Hackel's embrios, Piltdown man ..etc..
  • Please explain the "evolution" for this fish (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 16:03)

    mircea [anonim]

    Copella Arnoldi. You can watch it here doing very well what it is suppose to do to "get a life": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD_6zPyrb00

    Can you explain the existence of such a fish? How come it managed to have everything it needs to do just the right job? It has suckers to attach onto the leaf, it "knows" how to synchronize with the partner (jump and all), the mail has a bigger tail lobe and "knows" how to use it so the eggs don't dry out. How do you evolve such an organism and way of life?
    And such examples are many.

    Millions of years of randomness are just not enough of an answer for this. There is too much perfection in this creature and the way every piece of the puzzle fits. You have to see it, unless you don't want to...
    • really? (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 17:33)

      Dan [anonim] i-a raspuns lui mircea

      So how do you explain that God created that fish?
      Did he have a reason? Did he create this fish just for fun?
      You have two theories here. One is the theory of God that says everything was created by God. Don't even bother to ask any question. The other theory says that everything evolved in tiny steps during billions of years. And you can question anything you want. There is no proof to support the first theory and many evidences to support the second one. Evolution does not prove everything but that is nothing yet to disprove it. The theory of God is based on fairy tales.
      • not the kind of answer I need (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 18:12)

        mircea [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Dan

        I am sorry to tell you Dan that your answer is not in any way answering my questions. Please try harder. Thank you.
  • Comentariul meu: (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 16:09)

    Pintea Haiducul [utilizator]

    Citez:
    "Am fost stupefiat cand am vazut un manual de biologie romanesc, pentru liceu. Am o fata de 17 ani care urmeaza cursuri de biologie anul acesta, iar manualul ei este cu mii de ani lumina mai avansat decat manualele de liceu din Romania. Romania are nevoie sa-si imbunatateasca dramatic si imediat educatia stiintifica si, cel mai important, trebuie sa iasa din sectorul religiei.[...] Nu amestecati religia si educatia. Romania va fi impotmolita mereu intr-o existenta medievala ca pseudo-teocratie, cu o indoctrinare religioasa similara cu ceea ce elevii primeau cu secole in urma."


    "Romania va fi impotmolita mereu intr-o existenta medievala"???Permiteti-mi sa fiu SCEPTIC fatza de o afirmatie atat de categorica,care nu denota deloc o gandire sceptica si nici macar umanista.Se va vedea oricum in curand cine sunt cei mai avansati cu mii de ani lumina,romanii sau americanii...In epoca moderna,Religiile n-au fost niciodata incompatibile in esentza cu Adevarurile Stiintifice.Numai in USA sunt incompatibile.Rog Redactia HotNews sa nu-mi respinga acest comentariu,el nu este un atac la persoana ci un atac la un sistem de gandire care respinge Creatia Cosmica si Armonia Ratiunii Universale,lucruri in care eu cred. Impreuna cu multi altii,sa-i numesc "Umanitatea in imensa ei majoritate"...Buna ziua tuturor!
    • asa e (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 17:15)

      mvr [utilizator] i-a raspuns lui Pintea Haiducul

      Aveti dreptate, religiile nu sunt incompatibile cu stiinta, dupa cum nici pestii nu sunt incompatibili cu bicicletele :)
      • Ah,ce ironie debila...Mai incearca! Succes! (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 18:09)

        Pintea Haiducul [utilizator] i-a raspuns lui mvr

        Hai sa-ti aduc un argument forte,absolut inatacabil,in sustinerea punctului meu de vedere,ca Religiile nu pot fi incompatibile in esentza cu Stiinta.Cand spun Religii nu ma refer la dogme si ritualuri,ci la crezul lor comun fundamental,acela ca in lume nimic nu este intamplator si ca exista o Ratiune Suprema care guverneaza totul si care face ca orice act de nedreptate tolerat de oameni sa fie finalmente condamnat si pedepsit de o "justitie divina".Cum se stie,coruptia e o constanta universala,asa ca oamenii cinstiti nu pot spera in mod realist ca marile nedreptati (ale Marilor Puteri,de ex.) sa fie condamnate si pedepsite de vreo instantza umana.Daca oamenii nu ar spera in condamnarea sigura a acestor nedreptati de catre o "instantza transcendentala" (care se poate confunda chiar cu "evolutia lucrurilor in timp",de ce nu! ;ma refer la ceea ce se numeste "poetic justice") atunci simtul lor moral s-ar atrofia,ei s-ar resemna si s-ar demoraliza si in cele din urma nu ar mai fi interesati de bunastarea lor personala si a lumii in care traiesc,ar aluneca definitiv si in proportie de masa pe panta drogurilor si a hedonismului consumerist poluant al Planetei.Dorinta pasionata de bunastare personala si a lumii inconjuratoare sta la originea dorintei de Cunoastere,adica a cercetarii stiintifice si a inovatiei tehnologice.Ca sa sumarizez,fara credintza pur religioasa in "divine justice",dorinta de Cunoastere nu este posibila si nici Stiinta cu descoperirile si adevarurile ei eterne pe care le smulge Universului.Iata deci ca intre Religie si Stiinta nu doar relatia istorica binecunoscuta (Evul Mediu--Epoca Moderna) este de cauzalitate subiacenta,ci si relatia din interiorul psihismului abisal al oamenilor si al grupurilor de oameni care fac Stiinta.Compatibilitatea de care vorbeam e de natura intrinseca si cauzala.Concluzia mea este ca un om cu desavarsire nereligios e in afara Stiintei,nu poate crea nimic in acest domeniu.Bag mana-n foc ca e si cazul lui Michael Shermer!!!
        • comentariile tale = sofisme (Joi, 10 septembrie 2009, 16:08)

          Feynman [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Pintea Haiducul

          Argument absolut inatacabil :)) ??
          Prietene esti indragostit de artificiile retorice ieftine si de argumentatiile puerile. Postarea ta este plina de sofisme. Felicitari! :)

          Concluzia ta este ca un om cu desavarsire nereligios e in afara Stiintei,nu poate crea nimic in acest domeniu ?
          Pai concluzia ta este falsa si ti-o pot demonstra cu cateva (contra) exemple:
          - Richard Feynman (nu cred ca ai auzit de el)
          - James D. Watson (nu cred ca ai auzit nici de asta)
          - Paul Dirac
          - Steven Weinberg
          - Paul Boyer
          - Alan Turing
          etc

          In plus, vezi ca Royal Society si Nature (stiu ca n-ai auzit de ele), tot faceau de prin anii 30-40 fel de fel de sondaje printre oamenii de stiinta de top. Iar printre aia, credinciosi ca tine, erau cam 5% cu indulgenta.

          Aaa, iar Einstein era cat se poate de agnostic, asa ca nu mai dezinforma pe forum.
    • hmmm (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 17:39)

      va [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Pintea Haiducul

      Manualul de biologie romanesc mi se pare acceptabil (versiunea M1). Recent am citit manualul de Biologie M1 clasa a XI-a (anatomie) si este bine structurat, plin de informatii corecte. Am citit si o versiune Americana...singurul plus erau ilustratiile (mai abundente) si explicatiile.
  • Daca nu exista Dumnezeu, ce e Biblia? (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 17:16)

    raluca [anonim]

    Daca nu există acea forță inteligentă care ne-a creat cu un scop, ce este Biblia? Eu zic ca ea este tocmai dovada că Dumnezeu există și ca a fost interestat de soarta creaturilor sale și de aceea li S-a revelat prin Cuvantul Sau , adică prin Scriptură. Biblia conține foarte multe afirmații care mai tarziu s-au dovedit adevarate prin demonstrațiile aduse tocmai de știintă.
    Cartea lui Iov (scrisa in aprox. 1600 i Hr) in cap 26:7 afirma ca ”D-zeu spanzura pamantul pe nimic.” Acesta afirmatie este confirmata de Isaac Newton care a fost creștin, la fel ca și Galileo Galilei, Albert Einstein și multi alți mari oameni de știintă care erau creștini și nu au găsit nici o neconcordanță între credința lor intr-un Dumnezeu creator ci dimpotriva au inteles tot mai mult din frumusetea si complexitatea Lui prin ceea ce au descoperit.
    Biblia conține foarte multe indrumări de ordin moral, juridic și social, medical care sunt indispensabile unei bune convietuiri.
  • evolutionism versus ideologie (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 17:48)

    bog [anonim]

    Din fericire v-am citit o parte din carti.
    Concluzia la care am ajuns a fost ca nu sunteti un om de stiinta, ci un ideolog.

    Ati venit in Romania pentru "a ne arata calea" sau pentru a va spune punctul de vedere?

    Cu ce este mai bun evolutionismul decat creationismul, plecand de la legatura foarte stransa dintre aceasta teorie si marile orori ale celui de-al doilea razboi mondial?
    • legatura foarte stransa (Miercuri, 9 septembrie 2009, 18:13)

      aha [anonim] i-a raspuns lui bog

      legatura foarte stransa exista doar in capul unei categorii de bigoti si ignoranti care uita prea usor ororile infaptuite de credinciosi de-a lungul a cateva mii de ani
      • ce parere ai de ororile de azi? (Joi, 10 septembrie 2009, 10:17)

        ghita [anonim] i-a raspuns lui aha

        Uita-te atent in jurul tau. Nu vezi ce se intampla azi cand omul este liber? Ce am facut cu libertatea noastra? Cu mult mai mari orori.
        Nici un pic de respect fata de natura, fata de semeni fata de rude si de mama si tata. Dumnezeul tuturor este banul. Chiar iti place rezultatul?
  • Objective proof (Joi, 10 septembrie 2009, 10:54)

    Andrei Pavel [anonim]

    Why is the world blind to this present? Surrounded by 21st century and having 1- prehistoric proofs and 2- other stars and galaxies... How can anybody believe that the world was created a few thousands years ago?
    We are evolving on the technology scale, but as human beings we try to dominate. I learned about this, i understand it.. but most of the wars were started by religion issues. It really sucks...
  • excelent! (Joi, 10 septembrie 2009, 11:17)

    mimo [anonim]

    Mie mi-a placut foarte mult "mini-interviul". Bravo Michael Shermer.
  • Creationism determinist (Joi, 10 septembrie 2009, 13:35)

    Puiu [anonim]

    Nu cred in ateism desi sunt un determinist; ar trebui scoasa dezbaterea din sfera contrazicerii intre cele doua categorii. Daca nu ar exista ateii cu expresie explicita, fanaticii religiilor ar fi ma rezervati; credinta in Dumnezeu versus negarea Creatorului naste comportamentul "violent"...Sunt, mai degraba, de acord cu Cabala; cu un creationism determinist, stiintific...

    Din pacate, toate categoriile de oameni ( si ateii si cabalistii ) dau dovada, intr-o doza oarecare, de exclusivism, de violenta in abordarea subiectului...In cele din urma, pana si pozitia lui MS se radicalizeaza!
    • gresesti (Joi, 10 septembrie 2009, 16:12)

      tot_eu [anonim] i-a raspuns lui Puiu

      Fanaticii religiilor se comportau ca niste animale cu mii de ani inainte ca ateismul sa capete contur. De Inchizitie, vanatoarea de vrajitoare, masacrarea amerindienilor, etc tot ateii sunt vinovati ? Asa ca mai lasa-ne cu cat de rezervati pot fi fanaticii religiosi.
  • evolution deceit (Sâmbătă, 12 septembrie 2009, 11:39)

    Stefan [anonim]

    I am a biologist. I also have researches on paleontology. I can easily say that there is no scientific base of evolution theory. The fossil records completely confuting and the microbiological findings are completely confuting the evolution theory. All the fossil records shows that the creatures has not been changed since million years. And we cannot find a single (real) intermediate fossil, which can support the claims of evolution theory. The only and simple alleged mechanism of evolution theory is mutations (means chance) actually! And this is a very primitive and funny way to explain the life on the earth and it doesn't accord with latest scientific findings. The life on the earth is very complex. One single cell is more comlex and way better organized than a metropolitan city.
    Mutation means unexpected deterioration on a creatures DNA caused by an external factor like radiation. Mutations cannot change the creatures in a useful way. Mutations are like an earthquake hitting a big complex city. An earthquake cannot build another shopping center to the city. It can only destroy.
    Let's forget about the complex cell, just the chances of a single protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 1000000000..... (950 zeros more). In practical terms that figure means "zero probability." Briefly all the scientific evidences shows clearly that the life on the earth has been designed, namely created by God.
  • If... (Miercuri, 16 septembrie 2009, 8:07)

    Vasile [anonim]

    Am urmarit cateva dintre comentariile dumneavoastra televizate si in Statele Unite si intrebarea mea de al primul meu contact cu aceste comentarii a fost: Dar daca va inselati in teoriile dumneavoastra? Cum rezolvati problema?
  • religia insasieste educatie (Duminică, 21 noiembrie 2010, 23:54)

    obiectivul [anonim]

    Religia (ma refer la cea care are la baza Biblia) este cea mai inalta forma de educatie.
    Daca domnul M S este sceptic in mod fundamental,si daca face astfel de afirmatii,este sceptic fata de orice forma de educatie,inclusiv fata de educatia religioasa in scoala sau in afra eri.


Abonare la comentarii cu RSS
Vremea la


/
Maine:
|

ESRI

Top 10 articole cele mai ...



Hotnews
Agenţii de ştiri

Siteul Hotnews.ro foloseste cookie-uri. Cookie-urile ne ajută să imbunatatim serviciile noastre. Mai multe detalii, aici.
hosted by
powered by
developed by
mobile version