benny

It is a forum for adults, not for children to learn something, and a thread about one particular individual (Dawkins) who supposedly is doing more than only speaking in his own name.

What most posters here want you to understand is that the master of scientists is a method, not an individual.

Here is why I think it is important to understand that the expression "literalistic interpretation" is an oxymoron: In advance of all the monsters that science can create by playing with the four-letter alphabet of the genetic code, some religious people come to believe it is a good direction to give to the world of being able to stick to a specific order (combination) of an alphabetic code.

I think you make far too much of Dawkins' omissions of Einstein's views.

The canary doesn't choose to absorb all the obnoxious substances that the industrial world is producing.

When?

Kitchen-table family meetings are more conducive to deliberative democracy than any representative democracy institutions.

I think that creationism is a legitimate collective hysteria precisely for the reason that science is too eager to destroy and adapt nature to our human subjectivity.

I think that, with mandatory voting, much more people will spoil their votes for the same reason that they, right now, abstain to go voting: they are too upset to see how the rich are fixing the list of candidates and setting the political agency, far in advance of the elections day.

Kant would respond: science cannot speak about God precisely because it is forced to implicitly presuppose Him in everything that it does.

Even in the New World, no where will you be able to hide from Christians and Muslims universal warriors who enjoy fighting the just wars against polytheists (i.e. those who don't want to solve their social and political problems without sacrificing innocent victims).

Something more like a Summit.

By understand the concept of path-dependency, you will understand how time, against the will of the people, may determine (frame) the political reality.

Paul, I think, was the first to notice what all radical Muslims know nowadays: that no war can be more exhilarating than the universal war against pagans. http://books.google.ca/books?id=kUhf1TT1vw...esnum=5#PPP1,M1

Just by looking at the disappearance of baby-boys around Sarnia, we know that all the new artificial chemical compounds, produced by science, that are entering our bodies, lower our chances to allow the next generations to adapt to their surroundings.

STV would already be a reality if only the Liberal government would not have set an arbitrary threshold higher than 50% for its acceptance.

Even in shallow water, toads are living through metamorphosis that cannot really be called evolution.

People who don't want to die in wars will make it happen.

For Gestalt psychologists, little sticks moving on a screen are immediately and necessarily identified as people walking by human subjects.

I have given different answers to your question and here another one: to understand what a virus is, one has to understand what can be a non-human intentional virility.

To me, face-to-face oral deliberations are the future of politics.

You could also have argued that humans have not regressed enough. Neoteny explains why humans, and not our closest relatives, have an straight structure (like fishes, say).

You could also have argued that humans have not regressed enough. Neoteny explains why humans, and not our closest relatives, have an upright structure (like fishes, say).

By definition, a fact is always a bit factitious.

We certainly don't want techocrats in control.