Comments by Steve Zara

1701. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197182 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:48 am

Comment #197179 by rod-the-farmer

You will have to forgive me. I am seeing things from my largely scientific perspective.

I am going to have a think about what you say.. it is an important point, and then I'll post something longer later.

Can I PM you with some initial thoughts first?

1702. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #197180 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:43 am

You can't be serious? Budhism, Native American beliefs?

I am serious. Buddhism in most forms states that there are supernatural moral absolutes. Of course, the question is what those are. So, yet again, people get to write their own standards and claim that they are the universal ones.

Buddhism is far more questioning that most religions, but still suffers from this fault.

There are no general Native American beliefs. You need to be more specific.

1703. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197170 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #197162 by rod-the-farmer

I did not realise the situation at the RDF. That may make me things look at differently.

What I offer is some passion for the subject, extensive experience in public speaking on four continents, plus (brags here) I am one of the minor contributors to the BBC "Have Your Say" program. They have called me four times in the past year and a bit, to appear on their radio show. I am, in their words, 'articulate and thoughtful', and a Canadian.

That is excellent!

I may not be a suitable debate candidate with my current views. If anyone religious starts to talk on scientific matters, I would immediately ask what their scientific qualifications were and why they feel they have the authority to speak on science from a religious position. In fact, if they were to speak about anything religious at all, I would demand that they shut up until they can provide a guaranteed definition and test for the supernatural and how we can know it exists (I have been reading up on my Hume). So, the debates might not be that long.

1704. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197166 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #197164 by Quine

What they often then do is (to use a phrase I believe I coined during a long debate with Dianelos) go away, press their "reset" button and reload their religious software free of the virus of rationalism. Then, they come back....

1705. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #197138 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 7:58 am

Yes you do. Maybe not you personally, but, that's exactly what a lot of these comments sound like.

I think it is absurd to state that requesting that people are sceptical and opened to reasoned debate is equivalent to claiming divine backing.

I think there is a term for such a logical fallacy. Perhaps someone could help me here?

Have you studied all the religions enough to make that broad statement?

I have studied the major religions, yes. If you wish to discuss a particular religion, then let's do it. Religion by definition involves making statements about what is supernatural. Those are evidence-free claims about the fundamental nature of reality. This leads to absurdity, as in the current split in the Anglican church where the Holy Spirit is apparently whispering different things in different people's ears. Each side claims to have the backing of God.

While we give such belief frameworks respect, we will continue to have unchallenged statements from Bishops that "gay people are worse than dogs".

1706. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #197128 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 7:24 am

A lot of our morality "does" come from religion.

No, it doesn't. Morality comes from people. At its least worst, religion is a framework which takes the moral and ethical ideas that decent people normally have and states that they have divine backing (as in "I was guided by the Holy Spirit").

At its worst, religion is like handing people a blank cheque, signed "God" that allows people to shop for whatever beliefs they like, no matter how nasty.

And then, we are supposed to respect such beliefs "because they are religious".

Religion may allow questioning to a degree within the religious group, but questioning from outsiders is frequently considered either taboo or rude simply because the beliefs are religious.

There are good moral people in every race and faith and bad immoral people in every race and faith and I include Atheism in that.

We aren't arrogant and narcissistic enough to claim that our views are part of the fundamental fabric of reality, and must not be questioned.

You can find good and bad in everything human.

Religion takes that good and bad and gives it ultimate authority.

1707. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197124 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 7:04 am

Comment #197123 by AtheistJon

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Video blogging debate is fine by me. (Not that I particularly fancy it myself)

I assumed you meant some sort of live debate.

1708. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197113 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment #197111 by Frankus1122

Not fair. I started much earlier. There was also the Dianelos debate. A detailed statistical analysis is required.

1709. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #197108 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #197107 by Barry Pearson

Good letter, but ID supporters and even many Creationists no longer question Natural Selection at some levels. They now tend to question the appearance of new species of "higher" organisms. They would have no problem with the development of pesticide resistance or the appearance of new strains of bird flu, for example.

It may be, however, that such subtleties would be lost on a politician!

1710. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197103 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 5:18 am

Comment #197102 by AtheistJon

I am pretty much against it. I don't much suffer from stage fright - in past years I have been a regular lecturer and teacher of university students.

Those debates were on specific topics, and time could be taken to respond. Spoken debates are about pace. They aren't usually about exploring issues, but about making the best impression.

It reminds me of Scott Adam's assessment of who usually wins presidential elections - the one who is tallest and with the best hair.

1711. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197101 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:54 am

Comment #197098 by AtheistJon

OK then... this:
http://atheistandchristiandialogue.blogspot.com/

1712. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197100 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:51 am

Comment #197097 by Apathy personified

On your list of reasons why you post, surely you forgot, 'because it's fun'.

Also naive optimism. I have this dream that someone - even if it is only one person - who comes here supporting creationism or ID will, when it is pointed out that trying to persuade us to abandon the tested work of generations of biologists based on their personal opinion of science and an old book, realises how deeply arrogant and embarrassing that is (I get embarrassed just reading their posts), and they say "Oh dear! I do look a twit, don't it? Terribly sorry to bother you".

Perhaps if those who post here don't, the message may get across to others who don't. Even if they don't change their minds, they may actually realise it is a good idea to shut up.

1713. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197096 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:37 am

Comment #197089 by AtheistJon

What's non-supernatural dualism?

That there is some extra factor that makes up our minds, that is more than just the activity of neurons. One example is the ideas of the philosopher David Chalmers.

By the way, have you considered trying your hand at debating theists, publicly and not in writing, i.e. on a stage somewhere? I think I would enjoy seeing that.

I would be very reluctant. Such debate are won by rhetoric, not by facts. It can be about who talks more loudly and faster.

The kind of debate I enjoy is like this:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/135785.html

you against al-Rawandi? Pick a topic. ;-)

I would not stand the slightest chance, either in terms of facts or energy!

1714. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197087 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #197086 by AtheistJon

Absolutely. I used to think that non-supernatural dualism was a reasonable idea until I came here.

1715. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197083 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:14 am

Steve, I agree with you. But, then this begs the question, why do we continue this way? You're probably the most prolific blogger on this site? Is there anybody who has posted more?

I am nowhere near the volume of others, such as Al-rawandi in full flow.

Also, I would not call this blogging myself. Blogging is when I post on my own site (sorry to be pedantic).

I continue here to rehearse tactics, to exchange ideas. I have learned a lot, and it has been useful. I have publicly (albeit in writing) debated theists elsewhere, and I believe those debates have been successful, because of what I have learned here. This site is also visible. People have come here to try and show that they can "deal" with us "militant atheists", and the consequent interactions here are followed by many, I am sure. There have been important discussions and demonstrations of tactics by epeeist and Brian English recently.

This is where we can "spar" in public and if we do so carefully, we may have an impact.

1716. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197077 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 3:38 am

I am a bit cautious about blogging in general being that effective. It reminds me of the Tom Lehrer song "The folk song army":

If you feel dissatisfaction,
Strum your frustrations away.
Some people may prefer action,
But give me a folk song any old day.

If we are going to be effective we need to do more than just "blogging our frustrations away", that is, unless we are sure that our blogging in a way that has an effect. Blogging alone is not action. For those without the huge audience of PZ Myers it can be equivalent to a conversation between friends in a pub. One puts the world to rights over a beer, but nothing changes.

Blogs can be used to discuss ideas, and to arrange campaigns. They can also be used as a resource, where one can archive thoughts and links.

But unless there is visibility, blogging alone is not a step forward, I think.

1717. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197066 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 2:51 am

Comment #197065 by noamzur

I would love to see some SCIENTIFIC arguments against "Darwinism".

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/nice_new_logo.php

1718. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197063 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #197057 by phil rimmer

That is my view.

Although excellent and necessary work has been done, the current approach seems partly defensive - waiting for the next place that the creationists will strike, and trying to prepare for their next technique. A push for teaching of critical thinking skills in general would help immunise youngsters against such attacks on their education. It would be pro-active, and would work with the current tactic of creationists against them. It isn't just a possibly useful tactic against ID, it is also a great life skill in itself.

1719. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197047 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 1:30 am

Comment #197008 by irate_atheist

Perhaps they want to teach about alternatives to the Theory of Gravity, too.

I wonder if you aren't actually on to something.

How could "teach the controversy" campaigners possibly object to a bill which insisted on the teaching of critical thinking skills in general, including the philosophy of science and reason. Perhaps even add some theories of ethics as well in there. That would, I believe, be far more corrosive of superstition than the creationists fear evolution is, yet could hardly be objected to, as "an understanding of differences of opinion" is what the creationists claim is all they are after. Let the children be taught how to rate different opinions; how to make their minds up, how ethical frameworks have and can be established without any mention of God.

What a positive campaign that might be, and in being so, it might attract more support than "stop the bill" alerts, as important as those are.

Athough such a change in education would be wonderful in itself, the implicit message would be "hands off evolution or we'll philosophize your ass!"

1720. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197044 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 1:14 am

What a bizarre claim.

By having an internationally accessible public website, run by a US citizen, where the facts are simply reported and discussed, allowing people to make up their own minds, Richard is apparently personally telling Americans what to do. All he is doing is enabling us to "discuss the controversy"!

Their knowledge of how the internet works is either extremely poor, or they are lying.

1721. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196900 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Comment #196896 by alovrin

It seems you have been misjudged.

I wonder if you have ever seen the Rob Newman sketch "Ray - The Man Inflicted With A Sarcastic Tone Of Voice" :)

MPhil's blog post is really worth a read.

1722. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196897 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Comment #196893 by Diacanu

I don't mind someone saying "what you have said is crap, and that is why".

If someone is being pissy, then that really isn't my scene. It is too much clearthinker style.

Ah well.

MPhil has a great blog post on issues of religion in a liberal and democratic society:
http://mphil.livejournal.com/3557.html

1723. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196885 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Comment #196869 by Goldy

I am a little unsure what the fuss is about, to be honest.

In a truly free and democratic society reason is the only way that fair discourse can be held. We operate by evidence just about everywhere, such as in legal systems. People putting forward views with the justification that they are backed by divine authority is to claim privilege above others without evidence. Dr Benway has eloquently described such activities as a form of sock-puppetry (me and my imaginary friend both think...).

By "prejudices" I mean more than just about sexuality. I mean a range of different opinions about the way the world should operate.

This seems pretty uncontroversial to me. Even an apparent faithhead like Obama has said it.

I am puzzled as to why anyone (unless they support theocracy) would sneer at such a view.

1724. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196817 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 1:09 pm

How about this, I limit my critique to sandal wearing, deodorant-less, granola munchers.

My husband uses deodorant, so I'll let you off.

1725. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196778 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 12:33 pm

txpiper-

Why are you attempting to provide evidence to back your claims? You refute the evidence of hundreds of thousands of experts because of religious opinion, so you aren't even thinking in the same manner as us, and you are using evidence in the same way.

So, I am baffled as to why you are even bothering to discuss this. We don't use the same criteria as you to evaluate evidence. We don't start with a fixed goal (supporting the Bible), and select and squish up anything we discover to meet that goal.

If you want to get serious, you need to discuss why you believe a religious book (the Bible) gives you scientific authority.

Why

txpiper's views plus any evidence whatsoever = txpiper's views

In other words, you constantly maneuver to ensure that any evidence provided has zero effect on what you believe.

Otherwise, there is little point posting. Go back and box yourself into your tiny religious mindset and leave science alone.

So why do you feel that your religious views give you the scientific authority of a Newton or Einstein?

1726. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #196730 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 11:34 am

Comment #196593 by AllanW

As Barry says, it depends what change is being talked out.

Even in many Western countries with gay rights, there are significant numbers of people who feel uncomfortable about homosexuality, yet they realise that others should have rights.

I think we can imagine a situation where a large number of people in the states are still creationist, yet have had their consciousnesses raised to the point where they are realise that this is a religious issue, and should not interfere with science and science teaching (odd though that sounds to us), where they realise that religious views are not appropriate as a justification for public statements on significant matters, and where they realise that atheists are not immoral and are decent people.

I think this could be achieved pretty soon; certainly not on a scale of decaded.

1727. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196642 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 9:24 am

It is no restriction on following where the evidence leads, and as for enquiry 'never ending', I'm not sure whether to take that as an article of faith or an inference from solid evidence.

It is nothing more than not pre-judging the issue.

Enquiry may be never ending. We just don't know. But what is the point in trying to make a statement about it like "a perception horizon"? Why even say anything?

I think many of us are deeply suspicious of such statements, as they seen to be an attempt to make things compatible with theism.

Theism is saying "and in this gap I place God".

And why do you still brand all people of faith with the worst excesses of 'organised religion'?

No-one is branding all people with that. Branding the religion is not saying that all people who label themselves with that religion are the same.

But, religion, at heart, is deeply problematic. It panders to people's prejudices by allowing them to claim, evidence free, that their prejudices are supported by the mind of the creator. That is really fundamentally unacceptable in a truly free and tolerant democratic society.

1728. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196588 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #196581 by DamnDirtyApe

Actually, this site is remarkably civil, all things considered, especially given the nature of internet discussions generally.

1729. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #196585 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 7:26 am

The main reason I'm not convinced is that the core religiosity that fuels the creationist engine has not been changed for such a long time in the States.

I guess the question is how hard or soft that core is.

My point is, at what point in this narrative does an intelligent, educated American scientist think 'Fuck it, I only have one career and so I'm off to Japan/China/Europe to further it'?

I can't say. I do see your point. However, there have been dramatic shifts in the world that happened far more quickly than expected: the fall of the Berlin Wall, democracy (of sorts) in South Africa, peace in Northern Ireland...

1730. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196576 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 7:16 am

Steve, I don't know if this is a misunderstanding, but my ire was exclusively directed at Vin. And come on - we stand on the verge of a bloody global conflict and very possible extinction at the hands of Islam. Can't I just enjoy my vice of blasting the self-righteous?

I know it was directed at one person, and I realise your views.

I know I can be a humourless git sometimes.

But I just don't see what such snarky comments achieve, other than to raise the adrenaline of your opponent. Do they help convince?

Anyway, I shall shut up now.

1731. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196573 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 7:13 am

Comment #196569 by al-rawandi

This is fun...

Just wanted to make a point, Stalin Icon Man!

It seems to have hit home.

1732. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196570 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 7:09 am

Well, I'm sorry if it irritates you Steve, but I won't be talked to in that tone of voice. Especially not when I can blast his arguments out of the water after five seconds of googling.

If you don't like what I say, you are free to mark me as troll or offensive.

My point stands.

1733. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #196559 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 6:51 am

So what should rational, reasonable people in the States do? Keep fighting the good fight? With no end in sight?

Big changes can come quickly. I have seen this in recent years, with the issue of gay rights, which has helped me considerably. There is now open discussion, and a presidential candidate (Obama) has given speeches in which he includes "non-believers".

I would not be surprised if there were significant changes in 5 to 10 years.

1734. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196549 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 6:31 am

So, tell me, Vin ever get tired of being wrong?

Maybe it is just me, but I find snide little digs like this quite irritating. If we are going to debate, let's do it on the basis of facts and reason.

1735. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196544 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 6:21 am

I think a good religion would help with this. It wouldn't deny evolution or natural selection, or the right to follow where the evidence leads, but it would allow the existence of a perception horizon.

No, you can't put a barrier on the possibilities. That is not allowing us to follow where reason and evidence lead. That is what I feel is so arrogant about religion - it says to science and reason "stop here!"

1736. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196457 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 2:17 am

We refuse to abide by law that would take away from our sovereignty.

All international laws take away sovereignty to some extent. That is required in a world in which countries interact.

As Isaac Azimov said in the late 80s, we need to start realising that the world is interrelated, as if it was more like one country. International anarchy is not a good option.

1737. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #196451 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 2:01 am

Comment #196447 by Shane McKee

Nice post. I'd like to comment on one thing:

Perhaps there was no singularity

There wasn't (I think we can say with close to certainty). Singularities are artefacts of the mathematics of general relativity. They don't take into account quantum mechanics, and we are virtually certain that some form of quantum gravity comes into play at very short distances.
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/129811.html

1738. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196440 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 1:09 am

I am not quite as concerned as others, and I think it is quite wrong to say that this means the entire UN is in decline. This is just one council, and has no legal weight.

I wonder if this couldn't be used as a precedent. We could say that only scholars of science discuss scientific matters (that would prevent the catholics spouting nonsense about condom safety, for example).

Also, does this mean that only scholars who are religious should discuss matters of faith? On this site we have people who are clearly experts on what people of faith say they believe, but who aren't religious.

It would have been better if it had just had been "scholars", because there are others who are experts on faith two - psychologists, neuroscientists.

1739. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196320 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Comment #196307 by MPhil

Here I would be more careful and say it selects the structures that make it possible to acquire the ability to do mathematics

Good point.

As for consensus - Yes!

Go to bed :)

1740. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196308 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Comment #196306 by MPhil

I see what you are getting at, but I don't think it means we can transcend evolution as such.

I agree that it may not be appropriate to label flight itself as biological.

But what evolution selects is the potential for flight.

Similarly, it may not be appropriate to label doing mathematics as biological.

But what evolution can select is the ability to do mathematics.

1741. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196303 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 4:02 pm

And the reasons for doing these things would not directly have to do with selection (except things like bio-weapons and nukes).

But that we have chosen to do one of these things can influence survival. So the capacity to choose, and perhaps even having the mental makeup to choose a particular one, can be distinguished by evolution.

1742. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196300 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I'm sorry Goldy - thinking is not biological at its base level... or do you think artificial intelligence is a priori impossible? Non-biological systems might well think one day. Thinking and thoughts are about information and propositions - and these just aren't biological.

Artificial flight is possible, but that does not mean that flight is non-biological. You might just as well say that the flight of birds isn't biological because the base level of flight is physics.

I think we are missing the point, perhaps. What matters is what can be selected - what is the raw material of evolution. The ability to fly can be selected. The ability to do mathematics may also be selected.

Therefore, we aren't beyond evolution.

Good Night!

Have a nice weekend!

1743. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196298 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Thinking and thoughts are about information and propositions - and these just aren't biological

What matters is - do these convey an advantage in terms of survival? If so, then the capacity to perform them can be selected.

1744. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196297 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Comment #196292 by MPhil

I agree with Goldy. You might just as well say that penguins having fun sliding around on ice isn't biology, or a chimp playing with a stick isn't biology.

You don't get to which particular stick a Chimp will play with from biology. What biology gives is the capacity for play in general. The capacity for play is determined by genes. Also, the tendency to play with sticks can be selected for, as it could lead to tool use, which is advantageous in the acquisition of food.

We have minds that can "play" with mathematics. Such minds can be selected. Playing with mathematics can be selected also - if it helps us survive.

1745. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196290 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I feel we can say we transcend biology only when we do the defining.

Indeed, but even then we will still "evolve". Natural Selection is a general principle. Providing we replicate with variation in a resource-limited environment, there will be selection.

1746. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196287 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Don't you think there are dimensions to human social life, intellectual pursuits etc that do not fall under the domain of evolution or biology in general?

Not really, no, as brains are biological. Dolphins will play with objects in the water with quite a lot of thought and planning. Does that mean that dolphin play is not biological?

I agree that mouse thing is interesting. It points out what evolution actually works on: proportions of alleles. It is not about increasing numbers, it is about increasing proportions. That can work even if the result is a declining population.

1747. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196286 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Comment #196281 by Quine

For me, it is those who Dawkin's addresses when he says we should not live Darwinian lives.

Comment #196259 by al-rawandi

I am a bit confused too. I don't really see how being aware of evolution matters. The brain capacity to have that awareness is a result of evolution. It may or may not turn out to be a trait that helps with survival. If so, it will be selected.

1748. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196280 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Comment #196269 by bachfiend

A "quick listen" to Yes? Which Yes? Early 70s, mid 70s, late 70s? Which of the many 80s versions? 90s versions? 00s version?

Which keyboardist? Which singer? Which drummer? Which guitarist? Which style? Pop? Rock? Psychedelic?

Saying "I don't like Yes" seems to me to be rather like saying "I don't like rock music" - there are so many styles and forms, that a "quick listen", or to say "I don't like the keyboards" just doesn't cover the range.

But this is so off-topic, I shall cease now.

1749. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #196278 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:15 pm

I'm tempted to reprise an old computer advertisement from here in the UK at this point (past Spectrum owners will recognise this one):

"Coming soon - the Microdrive".

Oh dear! Painful memories. I was daft enough to type my Ph.D. thesis on a Sinclair QL, and had to do much re-typing as a result of the microdrives.

1750. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196277 by Steve Zara on June 19, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Mike-

Other organisms may live in times of plenty, play, and do things harmful to the survival of their genes.

Even genes can do things harmful to their long-term survival - there are mutations in mice that tend to produce only (I think) males, and can quickly wipe out a population, even though, in each generation, that mutation is selected for (it will be in a bigger proportion of the population).

I don't think it actually makes any sense to say that we can transcend evolution. If we survive, then it will have been in considerable part to our evolved big brains. If we don't, big brains are not that much good for survival. In the end, the genes that produce us will either survive or not. That's Natural Selection!