http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/leonard-susskind "How do you respond to critics who see the anthropic approach as quasi-religious or unscientific? I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper: Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows: Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence. There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists." -- evident irony here on elitetrader as well. We have nobel prize winning scientists and co founders of string theory saying the cardinal was right when he said it is abdication of human intelligence to try and explain away the appearance of design as a result of chance or necessity.. yet I predict a bunch of atheists here will completely misunderstand this clearly written quote.
Exactly how are you misunderstanding "this clearly written quote" from your "nobel prize winning scientists"... oh, wait one.. note to jem. it's fairly well known you don't have all your chairs at home. So to make it a little easier for you, there is a "clearly written quote" within your "clearly written quote" which you appear to be misunderstanding ... it is "clearly written" in blue print.
you clearly do not understand what you read. "so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator" " So (our speculation about infinite other universes - and we admit it is speculation) may explain how the constants of nature that we observed can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator" ======
you clearly do not understand anything. they are your "nobel prize winning scientists" ....who are saying .... "the constants of nature that we observed can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator" Your mindless mistake is not reading and understanding properly what they say. It'll be the word Cardinal back there which made you hallucinate.
I knew logic did not matter to you now I see English has no meaning for you either. do you understand this - "so the the string landscape may" 1. what is the "string landscape" 2. Do we have proof the landscape exists? 3. what does the word "may" do in the nobel prize winners sentence.
I swear you get worse every day. Obviously the dots don't connect for you at all well. I asked you a number of posts ago... Exactly how are you misunderstanding "this clearly written quote" from your "nobel prize winning scientists"... You are quoting a (non Nobel winning) scientist whose theory is not proven....why?... it is obvious from that you are misunderstanding something. But you are quoting a scientist - quoting another scientist - quoting a Cardinal - whose own religious speculations and assertions are chance and necessity personified , saying chance and necessity are not scientific at all. .... well duh ...hello And by the way, there is only one Nobel winning scientist in what you call "this clearly written quote" from your "nobel prize winning scientists" You must have used that same befuddled sham reasoning when you were supposed to be a lawyer. I dare say your client list was made up solely of sadomasochists who could, once represented by yourself along that special gift of incoherence and confusion, be sure to get 25 years to life for jay walking.
See...I think the same thing about you people that believe in the big bang (that everything came from nothing) and that we all came from monkeys & puddles of primordial ooze. Dont those people believe everything they are told? And whats worse is that people are told there is evidence of this and there is not, but they mindlessly believe that because someone wrote a book and said it was true.
Okay someone call the nuthouse. That is so twisted. I guess you have to twist stuff around like that to make sense of total nonsense. Religious people dont conform their beliefs from reality rather they conform their reality from their beliefs. Religion is a mix of superstition and mythology. Christianity is no less ridiculous than scientology.