The Ultimate Scientific Experiment

By | September 11, 2010

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The Ultimate Scientific Experiment”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

3 thoughts on “The Ultimate Scientific Experiment

  1. adult dating Ireland

    Its like you learn my thoughts! You seem to grasp a lot approximately this, such as you wrote the ebook in it or something. I feel that you can do with some percent to power the message home a little bit, but other than that, that is great blog. A great read. I will definitely be back.

  2. Destin

    The issue is mechanics vs agency. If we were to describe the mechanics of a Ford 1921 we could explain it using science to describe how it works. This is analogous to what a scientist does, he finds out how the mechanics work. But instead of listing out all the science of how the car works you could just say Henry Ford made it. The two statements are not contradictory. Atheists try always try to wedge a border between mechanics and agency.

  3. Dave Lavack

    this article makes no point and attempts to undermine the logic or ‘ideas of the left’ that simply aren’t ideas of the left. The article starts by saying “Hawking claims to be an authority on the subject of religion.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. He is a physicist and cosmologist and has never, EVER claimed to be any kind of authority on religion. He has merely, by way of scientific method, proposed that the beginning of life as we know it can be explained without god in the equation. I could stop here because that kind of undermines EVERYTHING else in the entire article…. but I must also comment on the charge that lefties think “science is more intellectually rigorous than religion…” Umm, you missed again… We don’t think that “science is more intellectually rigorous than religion” at all. Science has at it’s foundation “observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.” Religion has nothing but fear and guilt and magic. The two cannot be compared. Your dad was a scientist and religious. Great. Who cares? There’s no point here. The ‘hopey changey’ Sarah Palin line just illuminates that this is the kind of article meant to give those ‘believers’ something to feel good about – and, of course, these are the last people to look at this subject objectively.

Comments are closed.