Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 6:53 am

<< Week of December 19, 2014 >>
Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
19 Day Month

20 Day Month

21 Day Month

22 Day Month

23 Day Month

24 Day Month

25 Day Month





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Article By Richard Dawkins 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4314
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1203
Thanked: 1256 times in 945 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Article By Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is the author of The Selfish Gene, The Ancestor’s Tale and The God Delusion. His latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, will be published by Free Press on Tuesday. This article by Dr Dawkins is from the Wall Street Journal.

Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with William Paley, in Natural Theology, that the creation of life was God’s greatest work. Especially (vanity might add) human life.
Today we’d amend the statement: Evolution is the universe’s greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have generated.
Evolution, to quote a T-shirt sent me by an anonymous well-wisher, is the greatest show on earth, the only game in town.
Indeed, evolution is probably the greatest show in the entire universe. Most scientists’ hunch is that there are independently evolved life forms dotted around planetary islands throughout the universe, though sadly too thinly scattered to encounter one another.
And if there is life elsewhere, it is something stronger than a hunch to say that it will turnout to be Darwinian life.
The argument in favour of alien life existing at all is weaker than the argument that if it exists at all, it will be Darwinian life.
But it is also possible that we really are alone in the universe, in which case Earth, with its greatest show, is the most remarkable planet in the universe.
- What is so special about life?
It never violates the laws of physics. Nothing does (if anything did, physicists would just have to formulate new laws; it’s happened often enough in the history of science).
But although life never violates the laws of physics, it pushes them into unexpected avenues that stagger the imagination. If we didn’t know about life we wouldn’t believe it was possible; except, of course, that there’d then be nobody around to do the disbelieving.
The laws of physics, before Darwinian evolution bursts out from their midst, can make rocks and sand, gas clouds and stars, whirlpools and waves, whirlpool-shaped galaxies and light that travels as waves while behaving like particles. It is an interesting, fascinating and, in many ways, deeply mysterious universe.
But now, enter life. Look, through the eyes of a physicist, at a bounding kangaroo, a swooping bat, a leaping dolphin, a soaring coast redwood. There never was a rock that bounded like a kangaroo, never a pebble that crawled like a beetle seeking a mate, never a sand grain that swam like a water flea.
Not once do any of these creatures disobey one jot or tittle of the laws of physics.
Far from violating the laws of thermo-dynamics (as is often ignorantly alleged), they are relentlessly driven by them.
Far from violating the laws of motion, animals exploit them to their advantage as they walk, run, dodge and jink, leap and fly, pounce on prey or spring to safety.
Never once are the laws of physics violated, yet life emerges into uncharted territory.
- And how is the trick done?
The answer is a process that, although variable in its wondrous detail, is sufficiently uniform to deserve one single name: Darwinian evolution, the non-random survival of randomly varying coded information.
We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that this is the process that has generated life on our planet. And my bet, as I said, is that the same process is in operation wherever life may be found, anywhere in the universe.
- What if the greatest show on earth is not the greatest show in the universe?
- What if there are life forms on other planets that have evolved so far beyond our level of intelligence and creativity that we should regard them as gods, were we ever so fortunate (or unfortunate?) as to meet them? Would they indeed be gods?
- Wouldn’t we be tempted to fall on our knees and worship them, as a medieval peasant might if suddenly confronted with such miracles as a Boeing 747, a mobile telephone or Google Earth?
But, however god-like the aliens might seem, they would not be gods, and for one very important reason.
They did not create the universe; it created them, just as it created us.
Making the universe is the one thing no intelligence, however super-human, could do, because an intelligence is complex — statistically improbable — and therefore had to emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings: from a lifeless universe, the miracle-free zone that is physics.
To midwife such emergence is the singular achievement of Darwinian evolution.
It starts with primeval simplicity and fosters, by slow, explicable degrees, the emergence of complexity: seemingly limitless complexity, certainly up to our human level of complexity and very probably way beyond.
There may be worlds on which superhuman life thrives, superhuman to a level that our imaginations cannot grasp.
But superhuman does not mean supernatural. Darwinian evolution is the only process we know that is ultimately capable of generating anything as complicated as creative intelligences.
Once it has done so, of course, those intelligences can create other complex things: works of art and music, advanced technology, computers, the internet and who knows what in the future.
Darwinian evolution may not be the only such generative process in the universe. There may be other cranes (American philosopher Daniel Dennett’s term, which he opposes to skyhooks) that we have not yet discovered or imagined.
But, however wonderful and however different from Darwinian evolution those putative cranes may be, they cannot be magic.
They will share with Darwinian evolution the facility to raise up complexity, as an emergent property, out of simplicity, while never violating natural law.
- Where does that leave God?
The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear.
Evolution is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip.
But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant.
A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least be as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain.
God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.
Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: “Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists.
Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation!
It doesn’t matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me.
- “If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant?
Such arrogance!
Such elitism.”
Well, if that’s what floats your canoe, you’ll be paddling it up a very lonely creek.
The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear.
They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists.
If sophisticated theologians or post-modern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again.
Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten on to their God, and they will brand you an atheist.
They’ll be right.



Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:17 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4610
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 253 times in 220 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post The Greatest Show on Earth ... fail[s] as a work of persuasi
From Publishers Weekly
SignatureReviewed by Jonah LehrerRichard Dawkins begins The Greatest Show on Earth with a short history of his writing career. He explains that all of his previous books have naïvely assumed the fact of evolution, which meant that he never got around to laying out the evidence that it [evolution] is true. This shouldn't be too surprising: science is an edifice of tested assumptions, and just as physicists must assume the truth of gravity before moving on to quantum mechanics, so do biologists depend on the reality of evolution. It's the theory that makes every other theory possible.Yet Dawkins also came to realize that a disturbingly large percentage of the American and British public didn't share his enthusiasm for evolution. In fact, they actively abhorred the idea, since it seemed to contradict the Bible and diminish the role of God. So Dawkins decided to write a book for these history-deniers, in which he would dispassionately demonstrate the truth of evolution beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt.After only a few pages of The Greatest Show on Earth, however, it becomes clear that Dawkins doesn't do dispassionate, and that he's not particularly interested in convincing believers to believe in evolution. He repeatedly compares creationists and Holocaust deniers, which is a peculiar way of reaching out to the other side. Elsewhere, Dawkins calls those who don't subscribe to evolution ignorant, fatuously ignorant and ridiculous. All of which raises the point: who, exactly, is supposed to read this book? Is Dawkins preaching to the choir or trying to convert the uninformed? While The Greatest Show on Earth might fail as a work of persuasive rhetoric—Dawkins is too angry and acerbic to convince his opponents—it succeeds as an encyclopedic summary of evolutionary biology. If Charles Darwin walked into a 21st-century bookstore and wanted to know how his theory had fared, this is the book he should pick up.Dawkins remains a superb translator of complex scientific concepts. It doesn't matter if he's spinning metaphors for the fossil record (like a spy camera in a murder trial) or deftly explaining the method by which scientists measure the genetic difference between distinct species: he has a way of making the drollest details feel like a revelation. Even if one already believes in the survival of the fittest, there is something thrilling about learning that the hoof of a horse is homologous to the fingernail of the human middle finger, or that some dinosaurs had a second brain of ganglion cells in their pelvis, which helped compensate for the tiny brain in their head. As Darwin famously noted, There is grandeur in this view of life. What Dawkins demonstrates is that this view of life isn't just grand: it's also undeniably true. Color illus. (Sept. 29)Jonah Lehrer is the author of How We Decide and Proust Was a Neuroscientist.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.



Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:30 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4610
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 253 times in 220 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Great Show, Lousy Argument
I am a critic of Dawkins. I wrote a response to The God Delusion ("The Truth Behind the New Atheism"), the essence of which could be summarized by paraphrasing a comment Dawkins makes in this book:

"It would be nice if those who oppose evolution (Christianity) would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing."

Nevertheless, when I saw this book on the "best-seller" rack in the same store in Dawkins' home town where I bought GD, I thought I'd give him a second chance.

I'm glad I did; this is a much better book. It's well-written, as always. It has awesome photos and lots of humor. Clearly Dawkins is much more in his element talking about life forms than theology, the history of religion, or American culture. Sometimes Dawkins gets carried away with whimsy, sarcasm, or on tangents -- but those are often entertaining, too.

More importantly, Dawkins makes a case for evolution, in a limitted sense, that I think is fairly persuasive. What he establishes is evolution in the sense of, "common descent, over billions of years, from relatively simple life to the myriad creatures." On that, I think his argument should be persuasive to anyone open to being persuaded.

But why does an Oxford zoologist insist on "debating" only the most ignorant opponents? Why does he give us a more than four page transcript of his conversation with a representative from Concerned Women for America, whom he tears to pieces to his evident satisfaction, and never mention any proponent of Intelligent Design?

I was hoping he would. I wanted to read Dawkins' best argument against the most convincing arguments the other side could put up, for the curious reason that I really would like to know if there's anything to ID.

Instead, I found a strange but yawning "gap" in Dawkins' argument.

Dawkins knows who Michael Behe is. He wrote a review of his last book, The Edge of Evolution, for the New York Times. He never mentions him overtly in this book, but he does refer to him, at least twice. On page 128, Dawkins refers to "the 'irreducible complexity' of creationist propaganda." Then again on 132, he writes how "creationists" revile a certain set of experiments, because they show the power of natural selection "undermines their central dogma of irreducible complexity." As Dawkins well knows, "Irreducible complexity" is the signal idea in Behe's popular Darwin's Black Box, probably the most widely-cited book in the ID arsenal.

These references occur in an interesting context here. You find them in a chapter called "Before Our Own Eyes," about the fact that on occasion, evolution occurs so rapidly that it can be witnessed. More specifically, Dawkins offers these jibes towards the beginning of a seventeen-page long discussion of Richard Lenski's experiments with e-coli.

Dawkins discussion of these experiments is more than a little flabbergasting, giving his claim to have read Edge of Evolution. Behe discussed those experiments in that book, in quite a bit of detail as I recall. Behe also discussed the mutations Dawkins refers to here in a blog about a year ago. Dawkins mentions none of that. He says nothing about the probility of particular mutations compared to population size. He doesn't even deal with the physiological detail Behe gave. Reading this, it is hard to believe that he even read chapter 7 of Behe's book, still less his blog on how one "tribe" of e-coli found a way to metabolize citrate. He imagines that these experimental results are a great blow to Behe's concept of IC, completely overlooking the fact that these results are just what Behe predicted! A single instance of a probably double mutation in e coli after trillions of cell divisions, is closely in line with Behe's predictions. Surely someone as literate as Dawkins ought to be able to see this. Behe wrote in his blog a year ago:

"In The Edge of Evolution I had argued that the extreme rarity of the development of chloroquine resistance in malaria was likely the result of the need for several mutations to occur before the trait appeared. Even though the evolutionary literature contains discussions of multiple mutations, Darwinian reviewers drew back in horror, acted as if I had blasphemed, and argued desperately that a series of single beneficial mutations certainly could do the trick. Now here we have Richard Lenski affirming that the evolution of some pretty simple cellular features likely requires multiple mutations."

So Behe knows very well that duel mutations can aid in evolution on occasion. How bizarre for Dawkins to treat the same thing here as the death knell of IC!

Dawkins also claims that in Lenski's experiment:

"It all happened in a tiny faction of the time evolution normally takes."

Nonsense. 20,000 generations is the equivalent of 400,000 years for human beings. A trillion individuals would be equal to perhaps 20 million years of human evolution.

Dawkins then talks about how bacteria develop resistance to drugs -- the main subject of Behe's book, but he takes no notice whatsoever of any of the tough details Behe discusses. All we get are glib words of comfort for anyone who might doubt the power of evolution, and an attack on "goons and fools" at some conservative web site led by a lawyer. Dawkins seems to refuse to engage in any but the most childish contrary arguments -- a remarkable act of self-discipline for a scholar.

I'm finding it hard to "place" this guy. There's no doubt he knows a lot about the natural world, and is in love with its wonders. No one can deny that he is a brilliant and evocative writer, that his similes are often moving and suggestive, and that many eminent scientists swear by him. Nor would I deny this book is worth reading.

But Richard Dawkins seems to me less a scholar, and even rhetorical pugalist, than that sort of mythologist, like Freud, Nietzche, or Marx, who cloaks his beliefs in the language but not always the rigor of scientific argument. To the extent he argues, he only seems inclined, to take on the easiest possible targets; indeed one gets the feeling both here and in GD that he is talking down to his readers.

Nonetheless, it's not a bad book. Read it for the beautiful descriptions of the natural world, and for its fairly convincing argument for common descent. If you want an argument against ID, the best I have found so far is Michael Shermer's Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design.


Review by David Marshall, Amazon.com



Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:39 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Graduate Student

Silver Contributor

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 416
Location: Portland, OR
Thanks: 4
Thanked: 39 times in 32 posts
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Stahrwe, what is it that some Christians do not like about evolution? Could God not have created the world anyway that She wanted?



Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:47 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4610
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 253 times in 220 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
seespotrun,

The two posts I made reviewing Dicky's book were not my compositions and contained no original input by me.

But to answer your question, indeed there are a number of denominations who have compromised their beliefs to accommodate evolution. There is even a term for it, Theistic Evolution. The problem with them is that after you start compromising your beliefs you find you have nothing left. Those denominations including the Roman Catholics do not hold the Bible as much other than just a guide. My own denomination was in jeoprady of falling into the same trap in the 70's but managed to reassert its core beliefs. But to make you and the others happy, prophecy is that some day there will be a universal church which will embrace all religions and science but it will be a corrupt religion.

Nice trying to provoke me, but if you want to discuss God's gender it will have to be in a different forum.



Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:30 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Sophomore


Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 266
Location: Riverhead, Long Island
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 6 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male

Post 
stahrwe wrote:
seespotrun,

The two posts I made reviewing Dicky's book were not my compositions and contained no original input by me.

But to answer your question, indeed there are a number of denominations who have compromised their beliefs to accommodate evolution. There is even a term for it, Theistic Evolution. The problem with them is that after you start compromising your beliefs you find you have nothing left. Those denominations including the Roman Catholics do not hold the Bible as much other than just a guide. My own denomination was in jeoprady of falling into the same trap in the 70's but managed to reassert its core beliefs. But to make you and the others happy, prophecy is that some day there will be a universal church which will embrace all religions and science but it will be a corrupt religion.

Nice trying to provoke me, but if you want to discuss God's gender it will have to be in a different forum. (emphasis mine)


Wow, an accidental admission. When your religion accomodates facts, you find you have nothing left.


_________________
-Colin

"Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish." -Mark Twain


Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:37 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4610
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 253 times in 220 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Colin,

It was not an accidental admission of anything. My point is that if you understand something to be true, you don't mix and match, for example, Unitiarians believe in everything so in essence they don't truly believe in anything. Read G. K. Chesteron if you dare.



Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:51 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5667
Location: California
Thanks: 769
Thanked: 1511 times in 1197 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Stah: "My point is that if you understand something to be true..."

That's presupposing your understanding is flawless. You should always be open to new evidence. If the fact of evolution requires you admit it within your belief system, then find yourself with little left, perhaps it is your belief system that is the problem. Evolution has empirical evidence, a figurative mountain of it spanning an incredible amount of disciplines. You have faith. There really isn't any comparison, but then, if you have faith in what isn't true, you then can't mix and match and accept what is true, cause then your faith goes kaput.



Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:05 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Sophomore


Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 266
Location: Riverhead, Long Island
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 6 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male

Post 
stahrwe wrote:
Colin,

It was not an accidental admission of anything. My point is that if you understand something to be true, you don't mix and match, for example, Unitiarians believe in everything so in essence they don't truly believe in anything. Read G. K. Chesteron if you dare.


It really is a shame that you're not able to critically analyze your own statements as keenly as you do the statements of others. You've just affirmed my obversation. "If you understand something to be true, you don't mix and match". Exactly, when you truly understand evolution it doesn't mix with your literal interpretation of the Bible. Something has to give and of course we know what you choose.

It's time to take the blinders off, there's a vast universe out there that you close yourself off from.


_________________
-Colin

"Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish." -Mark Twain


Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:12 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Graduate Student

Silver Contributor

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 416
Location: Portland, OR
Thanks: 4
Thanked: 39 times in 32 posts
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Quote:
But to answer your question, indeed there are a number of denominations who have compromised their beliefs to accommodate evolution.


I think that is really disrespectful and it does not answer the question.

Quote:
Nice trying to provoke me, but if you want to discuss God's gender it will have to be in a different forum.


I was not trying to provoke you, really. I am not comfortable using one gender to signify God.



Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:36 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4610
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 253 times in 220 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Let me clarify a couple of points.

#1) I went through the whole believing in evolution nonsense. Bought that crap for ten years. But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made, on the other hand, I read the Bible and it made perfect sense.

#2) Many people have a shallow understanding of what they believe and why they believe. Such people are easily persuaded to pop culture feel good fads. They are the ones who you say, "What difference does it make, we all worship the same God, right?" and they agree because they don't know any better. They will say they are Christians if you ask them, but they little or no clue what that means.



Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:37 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Graduate Student

Silver Contributor

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 416
Location: Portland, OR
Thanks: 4
Thanked: 39 times in 32 posts
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Ok.



Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Post count, I stab at thee!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3309
Location: NC
Thanks: 1156
Thanked: 1207 times in 910 posts
Gender: Male

Post 
stahrwe wrote:
Let me clarify a couple of points.

#1) I went through the whole believing in evolution nonsense. Bought that crap for ten years. But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made, on the other hand, I read the Bible and it made perfect sense.


This is priceless. You've rejected evolution because it's just so farfetched and ridiculous, but the Bible with its omniscient being and and miracles and all it's internal inconsistencies makes more sense to you?

Let me ask (against my better judgment), do you, in fact, reject all science, or only the bits that conflict with your religion? Also, do you get a flu shot every year?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Last edited by geo on Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Post count, I stab at thee!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3309
Location: NC
Thanks: 1156
Thanked: 1207 times in 910 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Great Show, Lousy Argument
stahrwe wrote:
. . .
Nonetheless, it's not a bad book. Read it for the beautiful descriptions of the natural world, and for its fairly convincing argument for common descent. If you want an argument against ID, the best I have found so far is Michael Shermer's Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design.


Review by David Marshall, Amazon.com


There's the book for you, Stahrwe.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:23 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4610
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 253 times in 220 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
I've seen a lot of people's lives ruined by junk science.



Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:


BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books

Poll

Yes  83%  [5]
No  16%  [1]
Total votes: 6

Books by New Authors

Visual Help for Getting Started


Top Posters

Of all time: Chris OConnor (14264), Interbane (5667), DWill (4989), stahrwe (4610), Robert Tulip (4314), Mr. Pessimistic (3542), johnson1010 (3342), geo (3309), ant (3159), Penelope (2971), Saffron (2859), Suzanne (2503), Frank 013 (2021), Dissident Heart (1796), bleachededen (1680), President Camacho (1614), Ophelia (1543), Dexter (1465), youkrst (1386), tat tvam asi (1298)

Of the last 24 hrs: Gnostic Bishop (4), danimorg62 (3), youkrst (3), Flann 5 (2), Robert Tulip (2), Taylor (2), Cattleman (1), LanDroid (1), war1 (1), DWill (1), monclerznsm (1), 2estiychin (1)




BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
King Henry IV, Part 1 - by William ShakespeareAtheist Mind, Humanist Heart - by Lex Bayer and John FigdorSense and Goodness Without God - by Richard CarrierFrankenstein - by Mary ShelleyThe Big Questions - by Simon BlackburnScience Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2014. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank