Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Scientist: 'Godless communists' embrace creationism
New Scientist ^ | 06/15/2010 | Andy Coghlan

Posted on 06/16/2010 7:59:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Enthusiasts of creationism on the fringes of the American evangelical movement now have the strangest new allies - in a nation that made atheism its state religion.

Yes, creationism has now reared its ugly and evolving head in Russia, the heart of the "Godless communism" that prevailed in the Soviet Union.

And, as pointed out in a superb blog by Michael Zimmerman in the Huffington Post, the Russian rhetoric sounds strangely familiar.

After giving a lecture last week in Moscow, Hilarion Alfeyev, Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, was reported by Reuters saying:

"The time has come for the monopoly of Darwinism and the deceptive idea that science in general contradicts religion. These ideas should be left in the past... Darwin's theory remains a theory. This means it should be taught to children as one of several theories, but children should know of other theories too."

This is a pretty clear inference that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school. American creationists could have written the script for him, as they've been pushing the same tactic now for years under different guises, most recently as intelligent design.

(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; General Discusssion; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: communism; creationism; evolution; gagdadbob; onecosmos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
The article concludes by citing their hero --- LENIN :

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fightback has already begun, and the Reuters item reports Lyudmila Alexeyeva, a veteran Russian dissident, as saying that Russian liberals would fight all attempts to introduce religious teaching into classrooms, especially science. She says: "It's a dangerous idea and we will do all we can to stop it. We overcame communism as the state ideology and certain forces want to replace it with Orthodox Christianity."

Orthodox Christianity is, however, Russia's dominant religion, and services are attended by the country's leaders, prime minister Vladimir Putin and president Dmitry Medvedev.

With pressure from evangelicals for the US to abandon the division between church and state insisted upon by Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers, and the growing influence of the Orthodox church within Russia, we could see an unlikely alliance forged between former enemies. Jefferson and Lenin would be spinning in their tombs.

1 posted on 06/16/2010 7:59:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
... as pointed out in a superb blog by Michael Zimmerman in the Huffington Post ...

Does not compute.

2 posted on 06/16/2010 8:01:13 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A cat may look at a queen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It just dawned on me this evening. Modern humans are nearly biologically identical to the earliest humans. Evolution takes too long for any significant changes to have occurred over the last 100,000 years.

But somehow, these early humans, who did not even have a spoken language, much less a written one, possessed brains which with almost no evolutionary change, would be capable of developing not only spoken and written language, but all of modern science.

How does a mutation create a 100,000 year leap in a species, in a way which that trait will not even be start to be exploited for 90,000 years?

3 posted on 06/16/2010 8:04:28 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"With pressure from evangelicals for the US to abandon the division between church and state..."

What are you smoking?

The fear-mongering of those who hate God never ceases to amaze.

4 posted on 06/16/2010 8:05:05 PM PDT by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Soviet Union actually rejected the teaching of evolution. One of those myths that Communists and Nazis were evolutionists. The former was a proponent of some oddball theory, the latter pushed Thulistic occult beliefs of a creation of different classes of people.


5 posted on 06/16/2010 8:05:31 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

For me, this magazine has lost it.

How on earth can one compare such polar opposites as Jefferson, lover of liberty, with a murderous totalitarian dictator like Lenin, whose first acts were to shut down freedom of the press, freedom of education, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, institute one-party rule, and start murdering everyone who opposed him?

Also, no mainline creationist or ID organization has ever advocating banning Darwin in school. On the other hand, I know of lots of Darwinists who would want to ban the teaching of creationism or ID.

In fact, ICR and some ID organizations have stated clearly that they want to teach “more Darwin” than the Darwinists allow the schools to teach. One reason is to include both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, but another is the reality that students cannot understand the 20th century without an understanding of Darwinism. The only dogmatists who want to teach one side are the DODO’s (Darwin-only, Darwin-only).


6 posted on 06/16/2010 8:08:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: magellan

And how do you conclude that early humans did not have spoken language ?


7 posted on 06/16/2010 8:08:58 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American

With this editorial, I have to say that this magazine has lost it.

How on earth can one compare such polar opposites as Jefferson, lover of liberty, with a murderous totalitarian dictator like Lenin, whose first acts were to shut down freedom of the press, freedom of education, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, institute one-party rule, and start murdering everyone who opposed him?

Also, no mainline creationist or ID organization has ever advocating banning Darwin in school. On the other hand, I know of lots of Darwinists who would want to ban the teaching of creationism or ID.

In fact, ICR and some ID organizations have stated clearly that they want to teach “more Darwin” than the Darwinists allow the schools to teach. One reason is to include both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, but another is the reality that students cannot understand the 20th century without an understanding of Darwinism. The only dogmatists who want to teach one side are the DODO’s (Darwin-only, Darwin-only).


8 posted on 06/16/2010 8:09:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"With pressure from evangelicals for the US to abandon the division between church and state ..."

It just occurred to me that maybe you're using the term "evangelicals" to include Obama's Sharia buddies.

They do indeed see the full abandonment of division between church and state in the United States, as well as the entire world.

9 posted on 06/16/2010 8:09:23 PM PDT by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I agree with you 100%. Real science can address opposition with facts and experiment. Only ideology masquerading as “science” demands a clear field with no objections. “Global warming,” anyone? “Overpopulation”?


10 posted on 06/16/2010 8:10:24 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A cat may look at a queen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

read later


11 posted on 06/16/2010 8:10:59 PM PDT by massmike (...So this is what happens when OJ's jury elects the president....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Does not compute at all.


12 posted on 06/16/2010 8:13:49 PM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82

“Superb blog at the Huffington Post”? They must be drunk. Understandable, since Zero gave a speech only 27 hours ago ...


13 posted on 06/16/2010 8:16:33 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A cat may look at a queen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why can’t evolution and a “creator” coexist?


14 posted on 06/16/2010 8:20:52 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Fundamental atheists are intolerent of any other religions.

Pray for America


15 posted on 06/16/2010 8:21:43 PM PDT by bray (Throw the Bums Uut Starting w/McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

>>Also, no mainline creationist or ID organization has ever advocating banning Darwin in school. On the other hand, I know of lots of Darwinists who would want to ban the teaching of creationism or ID.<<

You, of course, would be incorrect in this statement. The only request the scientific community asks is that ID and Creationism be taught as philosophy and/or theology.

One can no more teach ID as science than one can teach astrology as astronomy or alchemy as chemistry.


16 posted on 06/16/2010 8:24:43 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The frog who accepts a ride from a scorpion should expect a sting and the phrase "it is my nature.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ETL

>>Why can’t evolution and a “creator” coexist?<<

They can and do — just look at Catholicism for how they work together.

Alas, I can help no more — I just saw this is in the Religion Forum and TToE from the science perspective is not a proper discussion topic.

Good night.


17 posted on 06/16/2010 8:26:42 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The frog who accepts a ride from a scorpion should expect a sting and the phrase "it is my nature.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

*Kiss*


18 posted on 06/16/2010 8:27:12 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A cat may look at a queen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
You, of course, would be incorrect in this statement. The only request the scientific community asks is that ID and Creationism be taught as philosophy and/or theology.

And what if a teacher were to present them in a science classroom ? Will he be disciplined ?
19 posted on 06/16/2010 8:28:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bray
Fundamental atheists are intolerant of any other religions.

Yet atheism is every bit "faith-based" as any traditional religion. How can they know without a doubt that there isn't a god?

20 posted on 06/16/2010 8:28:32 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Why can’t evolution and a “creator” coexist?

Because they are mutually exclusive theories.

21 posted on 06/16/2010 8:28:35 PM PDT by The Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Theophilus
Because they are mutually exclusive theories.

There are those who believe that the creator used evolution as a means of "creating" ( for want of a better word ) human beings.
22 posted on 06/16/2010 8:30:47 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

>>And what if a teacher were to present them in a science classroom ? Will he be disciplined ?<<

Unless and until this discussion is moved out of Religion, I cannot answer your question.


23 posted on 06/16/2010 8:31:15 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The frog who accepts a ride from a scorpion should expect a sting and the phrase "it is my nature.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

LOL :)


24 posted on 06/16/2010 8:31:31 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The frog who accepts a ride from a scorpion should expect a sting and the phrase "it is my nature.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Well, you said you were going to bed. So am I ... ;-).


25 posted on 06/16/2010 8:32:11 PM PDT by Tax-chick (A cat may look at a queen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Buenos noches Tax-chick. :)


26 posted on 06/16/2010 8:33:11 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The frog who accepts a ride from a scorpion should expect a sting and the phrase "it is my nature.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought
And how do you conclude that early humans did not have spoken language?

There are no recordings to prove it.

Seriously, the stuff I have read suggests the big brain influence was tool use, and language skills came later.

What I point out is if indeed sophisticated languages (other than basic point and grunt) developed after the big homo sapiens sapiens brain was already there, and that same big brain could develop the theory of relativity or figure out how to transplant a heart and lungs, what mutation triggered the big brain and sustained the big brain? We know a mind is a terrible thing to waste, but a big brain in 98,000 B.C. would have been a waste. Sure fire was big, but rocket science was not.

Compress time, it doesn't matter. We are still the same biological beings as the cavemen of 100,000 years ago. The fact is today I could pull a baby from the dregs of the third world, and put it through the best education system available, and probably produce an above average modern first world adult. By the same token, I could take H.G. Wells time machine, go back 100,000 years, pull a baby out of a cave, bring it to the 21st century, and do the same.

What put a brain capable of a million times more cognitive capability on the planet 100,000 years early?

It is a mystery. But one I have not heard before. How did the human brain make such a leap?

27 posted on 06/16/2010 8:36:31 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

To be clear, Freepers are welcome to discuss science aspects of theology/philosophy on the Religion Forum.


28 posted on 06/16/2010 8:37:49 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: The Theophilus
Because they are mutually exclusive theories.

Perhaps they are in most people's minds, but they don't have to be. A "creator" could have simply ignited the initial spark.

29 posted on 06/16/2010 8:39:27 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ETL
"Why can’t evolution and a "creator" coexist?"

It can, and anyone who suggests it can't is questioning the process by which God created and manages the Earthly world.

Genesis 1:20 to 1:27 suggests animals came before humans. Genesis 2:18 tp 2:20 suggests humans came before animals. Genesis 4:15 suggests there were other humans in the land of Nod who were not direct bloodline to Adam and Eve.

Meanwhile, the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Jesuit Priest (and Physicist and Astronomer), Georges Lemaître, and was ridiculed as "Genesis masquerading as science" by the scientists of the day.

30 posted on 06/16/2010 8:46:18 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There are those who believe that the creator used evolution as a means of "creating" ( for want of a better word ) human beings.

I don't doubt that. People believe all kinds of things. Just because someone believes something doesn't make that thing true.

For example, "those people" might have conjured up a notion of a creator in their minds and a unique variation of an evolutionary model. The Islamic god is said to be a creator, and I know of a few imams who claim that evolution was one of the mechanism used by Allah.

Orthodox Christianity teaches a literal six day. Granted there are those who don't believe Genesis 1-11 and Exodus 20:11. Selectively choosing to believe the Bible doesn't change the fact that the doctrine recognizes that it was accomplished in six days.

Of all of the various Evolutionary theories abounding out there (PE, Classical, Catastropy etc.) none of them are compatible at all with "those people" who have invented a "Theistic evolution".

So "those" people don't believe in the orthodox doctrine of Creation or in the current variations of Evolutionary theories (that which is taught in schools), but some wierd convoluted mutant that is in violence to both theories.

Again, I submit that True Creationism and True Evolution (whataever the acceptable variety) are mutually exclusive.

31 posted on 06/16/2010 8:47:14 PM PDT by The Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: The Theophilus
"Because they are mutually exclusive theories."

Explain the "Big Bang Theory", first posited by Roman Catholic Priest Georges Lemaître. Was Father Lemaître wrong? Was he evil?

Explain how scientists for 40 years discredited Lemaître's proposal as "Genesis masquerading as science"? Was this all part of some elaborate ruse?

32 posted on 06/16/2010 8:50:46 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The Theophilus
Orthodox Christianity teaches a literal six day.

Why then, does God try to deceive us?

If he created the world in six literal days some 10,000 years go, why did he create photos in mid-flight from stellar bodies more than 10,000 light years from Earth?

Why would a benevolent, loving God, create a deceptive, fake world for us, his favored ones, to live in?

If we were created in His image, why would he intentionally lie to us?

33 posted on 06/16/2010 8:55:45 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: magellan

You’re making all these giant assumptions, and making even bigger conclusions based on them.

It’s only an assumption that language did not come with tool use. There’s no specific language center, so it’s not possible to tell from fossils.

Exceptionally smart chimps can be taught the rudiments of language. I find it hard to believe that early humans didn’t have relatively advanced language skills.


34 posted on 06/16/2010 8:55:57 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: magellan

Should be photons, not photos, in mid-flight.


35 posted on 06/16/2010 8:56:15 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought
My point is evolution suggests there is a mutation which allows something to happen, and an event which leverages the mutation, and then natural selection takes its course.

So let's dump language and say calculus. So some caveman from Quest for Fire had a need to work a second derivative to be sure the coal stayed lit, and hence the math center survived 100,000 years until Einstein came along.

Remember, homo sapiens sapiens coexisted with Neanderthals. But homo sapiens sapiens brains could work college math. How was the college math trait something which drove survival and propagation?

36 posted on 06/16/2010 9:03:44 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: magellan
If he created the world in six literal days some 10,000 years go, why did he create photos in mid-flight from stellar bodies more than 10,000 light years from Earth?

The world was created with stars in the heavens according to the Genesis account. The described purpose of stars did not encompass determining the presumptive age of the universe due to physical laws regarding the speed of light.

Adam was formed an adult. Does this strike you as somehow deceptive as well? It's the same thing. The world was whole, the heavens were whole and stars were there. Taking a purely physical point of view, that means that the light had to have been in progress at the same time the star was created in the Biblical sense. It's not as if the star was created in the Biblical sense and we had to wait a year, ten years or ten thousand years for stars to appear in the heavens.

37 posted on 06/16/2010 9:07:33 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: magellan
Genesis 1:20 to 1:27 suggests animals came before humans. Genesis 2:18 tp 2:20 suggests humans came before animals. Genesis 4:15 suggests there were other humans in the land of Nod who were not direct bloodline to Adam and Eve

Because you claim that those passages "suggest" contradictions doesn't make your assertion true. It may very well mean that you have an agenda to deconstruct the Scriptures, can't read without applying a biased template, or you are just trying to be argumentative.

I'm going to assume that you are the latter. In the case of suggesting a contradiction, perhaps you should try examining the narrative styles. In Chapter 1, we are given exact order and specific actions in very specific time frame. In Chapter 2, we are not even viewing the Creation, rather we are looking at the conditions and events that necessitated providing Adam with a suitable partner. That is, it is unsubstantiated eisegesis to say that the phrase "Out of the ground" indicates order, time and action. Especially when only a few sentences before we are given these details in the appropriate literary style. If anything, this is a confirmation that the animals presented before Adam were of the original six day creation (1:24) and not brought in from somewhere afar (or from water, or magic pixie dust).

Now in terms of that purely unsubstantiated assertion that there were other humans in Nod not of the bloodline (direct or not is immaterial) of Adam and Eve is easily explained by the statements of the historian Josephus that A&E had at least 33 sons and 23 daughters. Surely they married among themselves and produced offspring of their own.

Meanwhile, the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Jesuit Priest

So what? Ptolemy had great credentials as a mathematician, astronomer, geographer and astrologer. Does that make him right? I don't get your point. Thousands of years theologians great and small say six-day creation. One dude gets caught up in the cosmology of the age and instantly the Biblical narrative is wrong.

38 posted on 06/16/2010 9:24:25 PM PDT by The Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: The Theophilus

“Why can’t evolution and a “creator” coexist?” ~ ETL

“Because they are mutually exclusive theories.” ~ The Theophilus

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=22#22


39 posted on 06/16/2010 9:34:29 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("If Obama Won, Then Why Won't Democrats Run on His Agenda?" ~ Rush Limbaugh - May 19, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

"....[These] problems with the left hijacking science were recognized by ... Michael Polanyi, as early as the mid-1940s. .... [the] universe that is both absolute and evolving, as it must be; or evolving toward an Absolute that is orthoparadoxically both its origin and its destiny, alpha and omega .." HERE
40 posted on 06/16/2010 9:46:38 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("If Obama Won, Then Why Won't Democrats Run on His Agenda?" ~ Rush Limbaugh - May 19, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: magellan
Why then, does God try to deceive us?

Sadly, the only one trying to deceive here is you.

You make a number of assumptions that if any were wrong, would throw your hold accusation in to doubt.

But don't think that the Big Bang doesn't have its own miracles at work. If cosmologists generally agree to a 14 billion YO universe, you have your own light travel-time "horizon problem" because of uniform temperatures and not enough time between points A and B.

41 posted on 06/16/2010 9:48:07 PM PDT by The Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: magellan

Well, math is mostly just logic.

Logic must have been useful early on in hunting and later, war. Incidentally, language is useful in exactly the same areas.


42 posted on 06/16/2010 9:56:45 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"...With pressure from evangelicals for the US to abandon the division between church and state insisted upon by Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers..."

Cosmopathology and the Descent of the Left

[....]

"...Thus, the Founders were able to formulate the ideal of separation of church and state, not for the purpose of ending religion's influence, but strengthening it."

[....]

43 posted on 06/16/2010 9:59:04 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("If Obama Won, Then Why Won't Democrats Run on His Agenda?" ~ Rush Limbaugh - May 19, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Theophilus
The "Horizon Problem" was one of 4 fundamental flaws with the original Big Bang theory. These flaws led to Inflation Theory.

_____________________________________________

1. The Horizon Problem
2. The Flatness Problem
3. The Galaxy Formation Problem
4. The Antimatter Problem

Here is an excellent source which explains in layman terms what these problems are:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cosmo.html#c5

And here are some things I found some time ago on inflation theory...

Alan Guth [inventor of Inflation theory]: "Those 'little creatures'[cosmic microwave background photons], however, would have to communicate at roughly 100 times the speed of light if they are to achieve their goal of creating a uniform temperature across the visible Universe by 300,000 years after the Big Bang." http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth2.html

As Albrecht, now at the University of California at Davis, puts it, inflation is not yet a theory: "It is more of a nice idea at this point."...

"The model in Guth's original paper, published in Physical Review D in 1980, admittedly did not work. Michael Turner of the University of Chicago, who took part in Bardeen's calculation of the density perturbations, says Guth had been brave. "One of the striking things about [Guth's] paper," Turner says, "was that he said: 'Look, guys, the model I am putting forward does not work. I can prove it doesn't work. But I think the basic idea is really important.' "

In fact, Guth's "old" inflation ended too soon, and too messily. A "graceful exit" was needed to make the universe look remotely similar to ours. In 1982 Paul Steinhardt, another co-author of Bardeen's calculation, solved the graceful exit problem together with Andreas Albrecht; Linde also found a solution independently. Their "new" inflation worked by adjusting the shape of the potential function, a sort of mathematical roller-coaster that defines the properties of the inflation.

Most of the mechanisms proposed ever since rely on carefully adjusting the shape of the hypothetical potential function. None, it seems, has been too convincing. "All these models seem so awkward, and so finely tuned," says Mark Wise, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology.

Physicists would like a theory that avoids such gimmicks, one that shows how things ought to be from first principles—or at least with the smallest possible number of assumptions. "Fine tuning" is the opposite.

It was two fine-tuning problems, two such implausible balancing acts, that inflation was supposed to have solved. "You're trying to explain away certain features of the universe that seem fine-tuned—like its homogeneity, or its flatness," says Steinhardt, now at Princeton University, "but you do it by a mechanism that itself requires fine tuning. And that concern, which was there from the beginning, remains now." As Albrecht, now at the University of California at Davis, puts it, inflation is not yet a theory: "It is more of a nice idea at this point." "
http://www.symmetrymag.org/cms/?pid=1000045

44 posted on 06/16/2010 10:01:53 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: magellan

Put another way Calculus is merely an specific form of Abstraction, which is useful for say making plans, drawing maps, etc.


45 posted on 06/16/2010 10:22:43 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"......With pressure from evangelicals for the US to abandon the division between church and state insisted upon by Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers....

Good night!

I don't know if the New Scientist people are any good at Science but when it comes to History, they are Deeply Ignorant. Or Stupid.

46 posted on 06/16/2010 10:41:41 PM PDT by cookcounty ("Today's White House reporters seem one ball short of a ping pong scrimmage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
“Does not compute.”
It would appear Andy Coghlan writing for New Scientist thinks that a blog entry written by Michael Zimmerman which appeared in the Puffington Host, was ‘superb’.

He (Andy) writes that … creationism has now reared its ugly and evolving head … which tells us that he is not a creationist.


IOW, he's an leftist Evolutionist with a spider up his pants leg.

Make sense?
47 posted on 06/16/2010 11:50:25 PM PDT by Fichori ('Wee-Weed Up' pitchfork wielding neolithic caveman villager with lit torch. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I don’t where you read that idea from, but it’s so off base that it goes beyond being incorrect.


48 posted on 06/17/2010 8:36:19 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; SeekAndFind

“I don’t where you read that idea from, but it’s so off base that it goes beyond being incorrect.”

—They didn’t reject evolution per se, but they did ban Darwinism and Mendelism. Many pro-Darwinists were killed or sent to Siberia.


49 posted on 06/17/2010 8:56:47 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; ETL

Or, conversely, read Genesis and it eliminates evolution


50 posted on 06/17/2010 9:01:24 AM PDT by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson