This is a really nice article, describing in quite some detail why Creationists want to latch on to the outdated notion of non-feathery dinosaurs. And let's be clear about this: Some dinosaurs did have feathers. They are either the direct ancestors or close cousins of modern birds. Birds ARE dinosaurs.
This quote sums up the article quite nicely:
If we can be humble enough to approach the fossilized dinosaur remains with questions, rather than prepackaged dogma, we’ll be better able to understand why we’re here at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next story is about the recent/ongoing violence from some fundamentalist Muslims. (I call them "offended Muslims".) Sam Harris wrote an excellent piece on the issue: On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God
I've also written something here, which I think sums up the whole issue.
Here's the gist:
By the way, this has yet to be posted. It proves what Aron said about the evolution/creation debate: We're not using the same terminology.
For example, when an offended Muslim (meaning the ones who riot, as opposed to the majority who don't) says the following: (Quote from the NY Times article)
“We don’t think that depictions of the prophets are freedom of expression. We think it is an offense against our rights,” ... “The West has to understand the ideology of the people.”
they don't use the same "rights"-definition as we do.
To use that particular example:
Personal rights are usually (roughly) defined as "anything I can do without harming you". Combined with "Freedom Of Speech" it means that I can say negative things against you (with exceptions such as slander, etc.) and that wouldn't be a violation of your "right".
In their view, a "right" is "believing anything and everything without it being subjected to criticism".
I'm sure we all agree those two "definitions" are quite different.
I don't agree that you should have the right to get offended at something like that. I think what one SHOULD get offended at is honour killings, killing people for being a member of the Country in which an offence against your loony beliefs took place, the Inquisition, circumcision and the (almost systematic) abuse of small children.
Funny enough, the very people who talk about having their rights protected don't seem to care about the rights of others.
As both I and Hytegia pointed out though, there are those who don't take that view and disagree with the offended Muslims. They're the vast majority, but the problem is that they're not as vocal. Or maybe... just maybe, our press relishes the conflict. DogmasDemise, is it entirely possible that your experience of the protests, protesters and of Muslims in general is formed by the press only? Because mine isn't. I routinely frequent Muslim countries and I can, with some confidence, say that my opinion is a more objective one. What I'm saying is: Your opinion was made by others.
In any case, the article mentions one other thing and it is something I want to address:
"... the Muslim Brotherhood, declared that “the West” had imposed laws against “those who deny or express dissident views on the Holocaust or question the number of Jews killed by Hitler, a topic which is purely historical, not a sacred doctrine.”"
First, one needs to point out, as was mentioned in the article, that the US don't have that ban.
Second: Yes, that's precisely the point. Well, the words are the wrong way round, it should be "scientific history" and "merely doctrine". The difference between the two is that one can be absolutely proven to have taken place, while you can't say, with any certainty at least, anything about the other, aka your religion. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge". (At least, that's the difference I see.)
There's another difference, though: The historical fact of the holocaust cost people their lives, 6 million in fact. That's not something one can or should trivialize.
Your belief though, whether it be true or not, does not play in the same category, in fact it can never. I'm trying to organize my thoughts on how to express this, but it seems that the English language is inadequate to express what I want to say. I shall try again soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another story is Carl Zimmer's condensed version of the E. Coli long-time study. Read it, it's so worth it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next article is one exploring Nuclear Fusion Reactor "ITER". I'll give my views on the issue in a LoR post, but basically Fusion is a distant objective and we need to get there, but in the mean time we need other means of producing clean energy. In other words: Fission.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen