C OMMENCEMENT stories: Once upon a time ... a God who created everything that exists (ups. ..!). It is true that even have a long way from science, it is true that human beings always have wondered who they are and where they go. What is sad is that the explanation has been given to all summed up in one word: God.
Fortunately I am not the who believes in fairy tales and fortunately there are scientists who are able to reason, question and criticize. One such man is who has held the most recent moments in the life of atheists: Dawkins According to the analysis there are basically two grounds on which support those who postulate a divine origin of the universe: the argument of causality and the call for him the "worship of gaps." In chapter IV of his work (Yes, the same as the previous post: The God Delusion), Dawkins rejects the "evidence" traditional existence of God. It is not my idea to take up this controversy, the most important thing is to consider how the statement referred to believing that given the complexity of the universe is unlikely to be fortuitous product of "chance" (the "random"), and is therefore necessary to resort to a "cause" right or "intelligent design." As Dawkins says: "The argument from improbability (chance) states that complex things can not come about by chance. But many people define" stemming from the accident "as a synonym for 'come in the absence of a design deliberate. " However, natural selection, he said, not only explains all life, but also improves the ability to explain how something can emerge from complexly organized simple beginnings, without any deliberate guidance. The problem then is "How to escape the accident", that is, by chance? And the answer is, for Dawkins, the "natural selection" because: it is a cumulative process, which divides the problem into smaller parts unlikely. Each of these small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When compared in large series of such numbers slightly improbable events, the final product of this accumulation is indeed very unlikely, improbable enough to be beyond the scope of the casualidad.El creationist completely misses the north because it insists on treating the problem of statistical improbability as a single event. Not understand the power of accumulation. Instead, "intelligent design stands the biggest problem of their origin." Who designed the designer? We return to the story: What came first: the chicken or the egg?. The real alternative is the evolutionary concept, "natural selection."
The second creationist argument, according to Dawkins, is based on the "worship of gaps." "If there is a vacuum apparent, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. "It is the" strategy of "the God of the gaps '" or "God" Tapahuecos' "." Mystics exult in mystery and want to remain mysterious . Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do. "The reasoning that underlies the theory of" intelligent design "is lazy and defeatist."
So, what do you still believe in fairy tales? Is it better to follow the lazy and defeatist intelligent design made by believers to plug holes?. It's so easy for people of understanding see the mystique of what we do not know an opportunity to discover and investigate and not a false worship to underlie at what we can not yet explain.
But the story does not end here, because there are still more explanation than any believer can "believe"
Fortunately I am not the who believes in fairy tales and fortunately there are scientists who are able to reason, question and criticize. One such man is who has held the most recent moments in the life of atheists: Dawkins According to the analysis there are basically two grounds on which support those who postulate a divine origin of the universe: the argument of causality and the call for him the "worship of gaps." In chapter IV of his work (Yes, the same as the previous post: The God Delusion), Dawkins rejects the "evidence" traditional existence of God. It is not my idea to take up this controversy, the most important thing is to consider how the statement referred to believing that given the complexity of the universe is unlikely to be fortuitous product of "chance" (the "random"), and is therefore necessary to resort to a "cause" right or "intelligent design." As Dawkins says: "The argument from improbability (chance) states that complex things can not come about by chance. But many people define" stemming from the accident "as a synonym for 'come in the absence of a design deliberate. " However, natural selection, he said, not only explains all life, but also improves the ability to explain how something can emerge from complexly organized simple beginnings, without any deliberate guidance. The problem then is "How to escape the accident", that is, by chance? And the answer is, for Dawkins, the "natural selection" because: it is a cumulative process, which divides the problem into smaller parts unlikely. Each of these small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When compared in large series of such numbers slightly improbable events, the final product of this accumulation is indeed very unlikely, improbable enough to be beyond the scope of the casualidad.El creationist completely misses the north because it insists on treating the problem of statistical improbability as a single event. Not understand the power of accumulation. Instead, "intelligent design stands the biggest problem of their origin." Who designed the designer? We return to the story: What came first: the chicken or the egg?. The real alternative is the evolutionary concept, "natural selection."
The second creationist argument, according to Dawkins, is based on the "worship of gaps." "If there is a vacuum apparent, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. "It is the" strategy of "the God of the gaps '" or "God" Tapahuecos' "." Mystics exult in mystery and want to remain mysterious . Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do. "The reasoning that underlies the theory of" intelligent design "is lazy and defeatist."
So, what do you still believe in fairy tales? Is it better to follow the lazy and defeatist intelligent design made by believers to plug holes?. It's so easy for people of understanding see the mystique of what we do not know an opportunity to discover and investigate and not a false worship to underlie at what we can not yet explain.
But the story does not end here, because there are still more explanation than any believer can "believe"
Richard Dawkins god universe creation origin
0 comments:
Post a Comment