1. Selfish genes may drive out disease

Comment #28656 by JeffW on March 30, 2007 at 9:17 am

there is absolutely no reason to think that a 'natural' solution is the best possible. With computers we can use more sophisticated and intelligent algorithms. As we are engaged in top-down design, we are not limited to the original building blocks and structures of natural biological systems

The "natural" solution may not be the best possible, but it may be the best that is practically achievable. And how are you going to find those new "algorithms", as the problem space becomes more complex and multi-dimensional? Top down design? I think not. A system that uses GA's and GP's (or variants thereof), can scan possibilites that you would never conceive of. The "efficiency" of the GA is not that much of an issue, only the algorithm it comes up with. And it may come up with a much better solution than an entire team of designers would, even though the solution may not be "optimal" (if you can even determine what "optimal" is).

2. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28186 by JeffW on March 28, 2007 at 9:15 am

This "smartest person" stuff is silly. There have been many "geniuses" in many fields througout history, both acclaimed and unknown. Certainly Archimedes and many other Greeks. How about DaVinci? Bach? Beethoven? Shakespeare? etc...

3. Did You Know? Shift Happens - Globalization, Information Age

Comment #25550 by JeffW on March 14, 2007 at 4:30 am

Perhaps it's the onset of the abiogenesis of artificial life, to occur over the next few thousand years. In that case, we're the enzymes putting it together. Awe-inspiring, yes. But humbling, as always. First we were survival machines. Now we're enzymes.

When does the tool become the tool-user? Or do the two merge in a symbiotic relationship? Computers work for us, but we also work for them, as any manufacturer or distributor can attest to.

4. A Familiar and Prescient Voice, Brought to Life

Comment #22318 by JeffW on February 14, 2007 at 5:34 pm

As many of us have, I grew up watching and reading Sagan, and loved all his stuff. But I find this statement interesting:

"It goes with a courageous intent to greet the universe as it really is, not to foist our emotional predispositions on it but to courageously accept what our explorations tell us."

This may accurately describe what scientists do, but falls short of mark for engineers, artists, and creative people in general. They really do foist their predispositions on the world. And in some ways, using almost Heisenberg-like reasoning, seeing the world too clearly as it is can sometimes interfere with your vision of how it might be.

5. Zeus devotees worship in Athens

Comment #18567 by JeffW on January 21, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Zeus can't be any worse than Yahweh or Allah, can he? The Greek gods were vastly more entertaining, and Greek culture was highly enlightened for it's time. A Dionysian festival or two might actually be healthy.

6. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13981 by JeffW on December 20, 2006 at 12:20 pm

He's now pursuing the "blasphemy" angle:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1884

The last sentence says it all:

"Are you an equal opportunity atheist or do you simply go after the Christian God because we tolerate your antics?"

These are the words of a powerful man, with many important connections. It is only through his grace that we may live.

7. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists

Comment #9209 by jeffw on November 24, 2006 at 6:07 am

What a complete mischaracterization of both Dawkins and Harris. Hate-filled? Did he even read the book, or 3rd hand reviews of it?

8. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8005 by jeffw on November 20, 2006 at 6:23 am

"Why are we here?"

An even deeper question is "why am I me". That's the next question you're confronted with after you reject solipsism. Why I am not Tony Blair? Or Beethoven living in the 1800's? Or a drunken wretch on the streets of NY in 1941? Or vast computer consciousness in another galaxy 500 million years from now? Or if God exists, the consciousness of God him/her/itself? Why am I me? Dawkins would probably say this is an inappropriate question to ask, and I would probably agree. Yet I ask the question anyway. I have read about a book by Julian Barbour that addresses this question (not sure how good it is).

9. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7514 by jeffw on November 18, 2006 at 4:56 pm

"He has no awareness of God as existing entirely outside the universe, whose existence is his essence, and to whose characteristics we can only refer through limited human understanding"

Anything that exists outside the universe is, for all practical purposes, imaginary - unless it interacts with the universe, in which case it should be scientifically detectable.

10. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6809 by jeffw on November 15, 2006 at 4:22 pm

The real issue at stake here is that Richard Dawkins is threatening Deepak Chopra's income.

11. God knows why faith is thriving

Comment #3004 by jeffw on October 25, 2006 at 6:14 am

Basically, article says that we should believe in things that make us feel good. And Christians, Muslims, and less educated people do seem to reproduce at a faster rate. Well, so do rabbits and mosquitos. Maybe we should emulate them too.

12. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2304 by jeffw on October 20, 2006 at 1:38 pm

This review is a just long series of disconnected babblings by someone who tries too hard to sound intelligent, and fails. One must struggle to finish it. Not really worthy of comment, or of reading for that matter.