Conservative science writer maddens pop science reviewer

Yes, yes, Matt Ridley totally believes in Darwin.

That’s just the trouble. Ridley takes his Darwinism seriously; he is not a progressive. Like Darwin, he believes in survival of the fittest, and does not think that the human race would evolve better if everyone had the imprint of the government’s boot permanently stamped on their faces.

But far worse, he says so. Thus, his book is “maddening,” not clarifying.

The New Scientist crowd likes Darwin only so long as he does not interfere with progressivism. That doesn’t make any sense but then they have been promoting crackpot cosmology for decades too.

Progressives do not need coherent points of view; I have wasted much time trying to make sense of things that need not make sense, as long as they can all be forced on the public, at once or severally.

  • FactsWillOut

    People who don’t know what a path integral, Hermitian operator and eigenvalues are, and how to use them simply should not write about physics. Religious folk who feel threatened should learn the math before giving their half-baked opinions.

    • You are missing the point. The article is about atheists that evolve religious type faith in Left Wing causes. Essentially the exact opposite point that you are ranting about. Of course, if you are a leftist atheist, then you have no where near enough perspective to understand this idea.

      Here’s the short version: prepare to convert to Islam.

      • FactsWillOut

        Calling modern cosmology “pop science” puts the lie to your assertion.

      • Jim Fox

        WTF is this all about? I have no idea! How are atheists conflated with left-wing idealists? NOTHING is more repugnant to an atheist than Islam…

        Your “point”is ridiculous…

        • Jabberwokk

          Because you atheists paved the way for the monster to rise.

          When you remove God three things must occur.

          1:) If there is no infinite being you are left with a finite being; man will have to become God but more accurately *some* men will become God. Those Men will gravitate between two poles: Power of Pleasure. So who will it be? Hitler or Hugh Heffner?

          2) Your Body will become your soul. There is no soulishness to man. He is merely matter and nothing more. He comes from nothing and is going nowhere. A child’s decomposition no different from 95 year old. feelings of honor or shame just a glandular response. No more relevant or meaningful than baking soda mixed with vinegar.

          3) Time becomes your eternity. Your existence such as it is a mere blink in the eye of time. When your time is up that’s it, the end. For the Christian death is a comma but in the world with no God it is a period. Even the stones that bear your name will eventually erode, as if you never existed at all. indeed it may be arguable that the person ever existed at all.

          And look what’s happening. People are defining themselves, language, and there reality as they see fit. They worship the body for what else is there to worship? they live for the now because there is no tomorrow.

          In ‘killing’ God Man has effectively destroyed himself. And what you see today is the natural outcome.

          • John

            You could embrace Intelligent Design and still remain an atheist.

            If there is a logos that determines the nature, the size and the shape of all things, that doesn’t necessarily mean that logos cares a hoot for the creatures it informs

            If you posit a logos “Citrus” that informs/endows all citrus fruits with the same basic design/structure, it could still be the case that that logos couldn’t care less if a kumquat got squashed underfoot. It’s entirely possible the logos “citrus” is totally indifferent to the fate of all individual citrus fruits it informs.

            So even if one could devise an experiment proving beyond doubt that intelligent design ( a Logos ) was at work directing the growth, the evolution and the diversification of all creation, that still isn’t proof of a loving or caring or personal god.

            Proof of Intelligent Design is not necessarily proof of the existence of god, as Christians understand god to be.

          • Jabberwokk

            True you could but I imagine it would be tricky and an unstable worldview. Aethism is defined a a lack of belief of gods(I even used the new definition 🙂 ) How does one Affirm that a Logos granted him his being/nature and then deny said logos as God without it being a distinction without difference?

            And I agree even if you could prove an intelligent design does not mean necessarily that it is a loving God (or even capable of knowing love…or anything besides designing us)

            That said: two things

            What I wrote has nothing to do with that. I simply stated what happens when the logos is removed entirely especially in the context of contemporary Atheism of the last century and it’s effect it has had particularly ion the west. I do however thank you for at the very least entertaining the thought but get where you are coming from i.e. “So what if there is a God/Logos/Flying Spaghetti monster? Even if there is what makes you think he cares?”

            Second Even if there was an indifferent Logos I don’t see how the situation would change then. We’d still have the three issues to contend with. Perhaps that’s your point? Are you saying it doesn’t matter because we deal with those contentions anyway? If so your right *but* that would depend on the next question that comes after ‘Is there a God’ which is ‘Who are you God?’. Personally, If I can be granted an assumption that the first question is answered in in the affirmative, then the fact that we think in moral categories is a clue to the answer to the second.

          • John

            I find that many believing Christians hold out the promise of Intelligent Design as proof there’s a loving, sympathetic god…or at least proof pointing in that direction.

            For them intelligent design is like some holy grail proving god exists. I’m not of that opinion. Intelligent design ( logos) could well be aloof and completely indifferent to our fate. A kind of ‘cold’ intelligence.

          • Jabberwokk

            Same. I feel though God has left enough evidence in life to make him plausible but not so much that we can arrive at that conclusion through reason alone.

            But yes I agree that it is not the “end-all-be-all” or holy grail as you put it but like I said my question to a ‘cold intelligence’ is why do we think in moral categories? A cold intelligence still implies a purpose and a purpose implies a plan.

          • Jim Fox

            Best piece of piffle I have seen in a long time. Well done.

            “You atheists”. Nice ad-hom, too.

          • Jabberwokk

            …accused the man by way of an ad hominem

            Perhaps it would have been more to your tastes had i phrased it “Atheism has paved the way….*”.

        • Nothing more repugnant than Islam? What a joke. Atheists whine about their Christian benefactors all the time and cower before Muslim threats. All. The. Time. Show me a significant, sustained effort by Atheists to push back against Islamic culture attacks.

  • Xavier

    The Progressive credo: If it’s useful, it’s gospel. Reality be damned.

  • Jim Fox

    WTF is this all about? I have no idea! How are atheists conflated with left-wing
    idealists? NOTHING is more repugnant to an atheist than Islam…