13 hours ago
Monday, December 19, 2005
The Probabilistic Age
Chris Anderson has an excellent entry on The Probabilistic Age: the emergence of market-driven intelligence. I'm not 100 percent convinced in the inherent goodness of probabilistic systems, but they are frighteningly efficient.
Posted by Jonathan V. Last at 11:10 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I find it amusing that you are endorsing so strongly an article that says that creationists are people whose brain aren't able to grasp the truth about evolution.
This must be an example of the liberal media bias I've been hearing about.
Oooh, Kwawk's nailed you, Last! Why don't you shitcan that pre-med degree from Johns Hopkins right this instant?
After all--and let's all follow Kwawk's thinking here--you work for The Weekly Standard; The Weekly Standard is, broadly speaking, conservative; some conservatives question the validity of the theory of natural selection. Consequently, there is no liberal media bias!
Kwawk, your comment was so stupid it would take a mathemagician to model it. But, hey, it works for you, so whatever.
It's a fact that more conservatives need to speak out against the idea of teaching I.D. in science classes.
I feel sorry for anyone in Kansas who has to try and get an education admidst this nonsense.
I agree with your point though, that just because the religious right has co-opted the Republican Party, that doesn't make ID vs. evolution a conservative vs. liberal issue. That's four groups named there, and the predictable overlaps are not 100.00%.
Wow. I seem to have struck a nerve with anonymous 3:30. I have to say thank you for a good chuckle anon.
Bizarro Jack kinda gets it. The whole ID vs evolution debate shouldn't be one of liberal vs conservative. Unfortunately there is the great compromise on the right in this country where fiscal conservatives have alligned with social conservatives, and the two sides have become so afraid to criticize each other that it has led to ethical compromises such as the whole ID debate.
If mainstream conservatives were to come out against ID, then it wouldn't really be an issue. Instead it has become a weapon that can be used to beat Democrats about the head in campaigns to show how democrats hate God.
Anon 3:30, please do me a favor and point me in the direction of one national conservative commentator that has published an opinion saying that the ID folks are off base.
Kwawk, you crack me up. Look, even if what you meant to say is what BJ said, you didn't actually say that. Instead, we got an earful of sarcasm about "liberal media bias."
Tell you what. Google the words "Charles Krauthammer intelligent design." Then "John Derbyshire intelligent design." Then "George Will intelligent design." Go poke around the First Things website--theocon central--and you'll find more contra than pro.
Get the idea? Mainstream conservatism--to say nothing of Jonathan V. Last, who could freakin' teach evolutionary biology--already rejects I.D.
(As for your conspiracy theory, permit me to tell you--now mind you, I break bread daily with Scaife, Limbaugh, Dobson, and an agent from Mossad--that it's more than a bit silly.)
I never meant to say what BJ said. I just meant to make a smart ass comment about a story which seemed to equate belief in creationism with having an inadequite mind. I found it funny.
And I said nothing about a conspiracy. I said compromise. If you are going to challenge and insult me, atleast have the courtesy to do so based upon what I actually said, not on some imaginary tangent and for Pete's sake, I think we can all do without the resume posting.
And you act as if I have this great disdain for one Mr. Johnathan V. Last. I don't. If I didn't enjoy his blog I wouldn't be here, I just like to put things in a different perspective once in a while and challenge the prevailing dogma of the blog.
Now, back to the issue at hand. I did get a chance to read a few of George Will's articles about ID and I stand corrected. Apparently he is against ID being taught in school. Good for him. Maybe we are in for a treat, where Republicans will actually be the ones to stand up and say enough is enough when it comes to ID.
Look, my wish is Rick Santorum's command:
It is a fact that more conservatives need to call me up and ask me what to do before they cast a vote in the U.S. Senate. (I'm just kidding, that would be very un-democratic).
COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED. A real monkey wrench is about to hit both sides in the ID vs Evolution debate and particularly religion is in for difficult times. For a wholly new interpretation of the teachings of Christ, contained within the first ever religious claim and proof that meets all the criteria of the most rigorous, evidential, testable scientific method, is published and circulating on the web. It is titled The Final Freedoms. An intellectual, religious and political bombshell!
It is described as a single Law and moral principle, offering its own proof, one in which the reality of God confirms and responds to an act of perfect faith, by a direct intervention into the natural world, providing a correction to human nature including a change in natural law [biology], consciousness and human ethical perception [proof of the soul], providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition!
So while proponents of ID may have got the God part right, if this development demonstrates itself to be what it claims, and the means exist to do so, all religious teaching, tradition and understanding of ID are wholly in error, while the proponents of evolution who have rightly used that conception to beat down the credibility of religious tradition, but who have also used it to deny the potential for God, are in for a very rude shock.
However improbable, the impossible now looks all too possible. No joke, no hoax and not spam.
Pre publication review copies of the manuscript, The Final Freedoms, are a free pdf download at www.energon.uklinux.net and http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com
Post a Comment