Whoa...Dr. Dave and many others commenting above. I don't know that mintaslanxor was taking a "gratuitous shot" at you or your profession. I hope and trust the individual was merely voicing an annoyance I share, being that what we can't explain through our limited subjectivity and empiricism seems always then to be conferred to some kind of "miracle." This does a great disservice to the pursuits of scientific inquiry. I have this conversation with my college students every semester. It's understandable and respectable that many knowledgeable and educated individuals consider life "miraculous," but I don't agree that the word best describes the vast--at present--unknowns regarding the origins and evolution of life. And, unfortunately, using such words gives creationists and science-haters all the more energy to fuel their incendiary attacks against the desire to understand who we are and where we come from. Coincidentally, von Humboldt, Haeckle, Thoreau, Muir and countless others have all spoken on the grandeur, beauty, and sophisticated eloquence of natural systems and the life force that initiates and sustains them. But none of those early thinkers were particularly given over to the idea that the unexplained was best defined as a miracle. In fact, it seems they were often vexed to even consider such an idea. For me, modern society is wasting far too much time, energy, expense and talent perpetuating myths and miracles over the far more beneficial efforts yielded through the very real work of hypothetical research and field studies. Life IS a marvel and a wonder, but it's also a phenomenon that we've only begun to contemplate, let alone understand, through the processes of logic and reason over the past five centuries--at least vis-a-vis the recent scientific revolution. Can't we all just finally move on from the antiquated notion that some bearded, sky wizard (i.e. the god of the Abrahamics) is the creative source of all? I mean really, two-thousand years of mystical, mythical, mumbo-jumbo is enough already, and the technical definition of a miracle both implies and denotes divine intervention. Indeed, the word miracle connotes religion like gum on one's shoe that one can't shake off. Lastly, please, don't relegate my comment to online snark. I admire your work, and am envious of those who have the wherewithal to pursue a medical degree and work in that very noble profession. But it smacks of pretense when a pediatrician, a biologist, or a life scientist in any given niche of the field speaks of the "miracle" of life as if the rest of us can't begin to have any true appreciation for the biotic processes of the natural world--and the origins of such, either known or unknown.
Whoa...Dr. Dave and many others commenting above. I don't know that mintaslanxor was taking a "gratuitous shot" at you or your profession. I hope and trust the individual was merely voicing an annoyance I share, being that what we can't explain through our limited subjectivity and empiricism seems always then to be conferred to some kind of "miracle." This does a great disservice to the pursuits of scientific inquiry. I have this conversation with my college students every semester. It's understandable and respectable that many knowledgeable and educated individuals consider life "miraculous," but I don't agree that the word best describes the vast--at present--unknowns regarding the origins and evolution of life. And, unfortunately, using such words gives creationists and science-haters all the more energy to fuel their incendiary attacks against the desire to understand who we are and where we come from. Coincidentally, von Humboldt, Haeckle, Thoreau, Muir and countless others have all spoken on the grandeur, beauty, and sophisticated eloquence of natural systems and the life force that initiates and sustains them. But none of those early thinkers were particularly given over to the idea that the unexplained was best defined as a miracle. In fact, it seems they were often vexed to even consider such an idea. For me, modern society is wasting far too much time, energy, expense and talent perpetuating myths and miracles over the far more beneficial efforts yielded through the very real work of hypothetical research and field studies. Life IS a marvel and a wonder, but it's also a phenomenon that we've only begun to contemplate, let alone understand, through the processes of logic and reason over the past five centuries--at least vis-a-vis the recent scientific revolution. Can't we all just finally move on from the antiquated notion that some bearded, sky wizard (i.e. the god of the Abrahamics) is the creative source of all? I mean really, two-thousand years of mystical, mythical, mumbo-jumbo is enough already, and the technical definition of a miracle both implies and denotes divine intervention. Indeed, the word miracle connotes religion like gum on one's shoe that one can't shake off. Lastly, please, don't relegate my comment to online snark. I admire your work, and am envious of those who have the wherewithal to pursue a medical degree and work in that very noble profession. But it smacks of pretense when a pediatrician, a biologist, or a life scientist in any given niche of the field speaks of the "miracle" of life as if the rest of us can't begin to have any true appreciation for the biotic processes of the natural world--and the origins of such, either known or unknown.
In claiming that the unobservable universe may contain 10^100 stars when the observable universe only contains an estimated 10^24, this scientist is essentially saying their needs to be 10^76 universes about the size of the one we do observe in order for evolution to even be possible.
I think this demonstrates that Aetheists have great faith in something that they have no evidence for. All reasonable people believe that either time or matter are infinite (which is not unobservable) or their is an unobservable intelligence that transcends the finite material universe that we do observe.
I think this demonstrates that Aetheists have great faith in something that they have no evidence for. All reasonable people believe that either time or matter are infinite (which is not unobservable) or their is an unobservable intelligence that transcends the finite material universe that we do observe.
Well, I believe that life is not merely a gamble but a journey guided by cosmic energies and individual choices. While scientists explore the universe through their models, astrology offers insights into the intricate connections between celestial bodies and human experiences. Astrology suggests that our lives are influenced by planetary positions at the time of our birth, shaping our personalities, potentials, and life events. By understanding these cosmic influences, we can make informed decisions and navigate life's challenges with greater clarity and purpose. Astrology provides a holistic perspective, encompassing both the scientific and mystical aspects of our existence. You should talk to astrologer for brief information.
Let's celebrate "bond of protection" festival with Astroyes.com
This Rakshabandhan, let’s celebrate the brother-sister’s love and feel the depth of this unique
bond with the famous Astrologer- Sarvesh Kesarwani
Ask to our Astrologer- Sarvesh Kesarwani, how your brother-sister relationship gonna be this year?
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?- Started by tonylang
- Replies: 138
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram