That's a religious argument and has no place in science. Specifically, it allows no new understanding or predictions. Save your ID stuff for philosophy.
Goodness, that's an awfully narrow understanding of science.
Science is the pursuit of truth about the physical world. Yet that truth will be very different for a world that has developed solely via physical evolution versus one resulting from the intervention of an intelligent being. Philosophical or not, this is a question that cannot be ignored by science. The conclusions of science (and for that matter, the methodology of science) can be radically different depending upon the answer.
If science intends to honestly pursue authoritative answers about the physical world, it must not discard viable solutions prematurely; nor can it discard relevant questions simply because they are philosophical in nature. (This type of compartmental thinking is wreaking havoc in the realms of medical research, where the ethical ramifications of such research are dismissed as irrelevant and distracting to the purity of the science.)
If we are the least bit honest with ourselves, we must admit that the possibility of God has not been disproven. In fact, in many cases, it offers a much more robust solution than any offered by science alone.
Are there unanswered questions about God? Of course! But there are just as many questions raised by the possibility of a godless universe as there are by one in which a divine being presides over life. You are correct that many of these questions--regarding morality, beauty, evil, and the like--are philosophical ones, but if philosophy has not yet come to a conclusion about God, then neither should science.
Finally, you suggest that the presence of religious arguments "allows no new understanding or predictions". Do you not understand that this is precisely what evolutionary dogma has done to research on the origin of life? This is why ID advocates are up in arms--because the academic mainstream has jumped to a premature conclusion about the origin of life that eliminates God from the equation. If we want science to be pure and accurate, we must seek to remove the intellectual arrogance, financial gain, personal agenda, and (to get theological for a moment) human pride that taints so much research.
It is only through a multi-disciplinary open-mindedness that science can remain pure and truth may be discovered. Now how often do you hear a Christian say that?;-)
Re:Seriously... Why would you use this?
on
GIMP 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Photoshop Elements would have served you better. It has the majority of the editing features of Photoshop (save high-end things like 'curves'); it skips all the print-centric color management features (not usable on the web anyhow); and it cuts the price from $650 to $80.
Plus, the files are fully compatible with Photoshop proper; you get Adobe support (for what very little that's worth); and your employees learn and use an interface that is very similar to Photoshop. I suggested Elements for my department's web content producers, and it has served them well on a dime.
It makes a mockery of the thousands of hours that designers, programmers and engineers have put into developing such systems.
Oh, does it? So now you can understand why many of us who believe in a good, powerful, intelligent God consider most evolutionary theory to be a mockery of him.
It's not because evolution is particularly bad science; God may very well have used evolutionary processes. But the issue isn't really a scientific one at all; it's a a moral one: giving credit where credit is due. And most evolutionary models remove God from the picture altogether.
My point is, the same principle applies, whether to game developers or to the big guy upstairs.
But a monitor and a cabinet no longer make a good arcade game.
Have you been to a good arcade lately? Say, a Dave & Busters or Gameworks? Arcades are no longer filled with simple cabinets with joysticks. Almost every game is in some way physically interactive. You sit in a car that moves, you dance on a platform, you shoot a machine gun that vibrates, you sit in a turret that spins.
In fact, I've noticed that you often don't find the best graphics in the arcades anymore. Graphics don't matter like they used to -- the point of the modern arcade is to give customers an *experience* that they can't get at home.
So as I see it, unless Microsoft opens a new division to create big, physically-interactive games, throwing a cabinet around an Xbox isn't going to gain them much ground.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a religious argument and has no place in science. Specifically, it allows no new understanding or predictions. Save your ID stuff for philosophy.
;-)
Goodness, that's an awfully narrow understanding of science.
Science is the pursuit of truth about the physical world. Yet that truth will be very different for a world that has developed solely via physical evolution versus one resulting from the intervention of an intelligent being. Philosophical or not, this is a question that cannot be ignored by science. The conclusions of science (and for that matter, the methodology of science) can be radically different depending upon the answer.
If science intends to honestly pursue authoritative answers about the physical world, it must not discard viable solutions prematurely; nor can it discard relevant questions simply because they are philosophical in nature. (This type of compartmental thinking is wreaking havoc in the realms of medical research, where the ethical ramifications of such research are dismissed as irrelevant and distracting to the purity of the science.)
If we are the least bit honest with ourselves, we must admit that the possibility of God has not been disproven. In fact, in many cases, it offers a much more robust solution than any offered by science alone.
Are there unanswered questions about God? Of course! But there are just as many questions raised by the possibility of a godless universe as there are by one in which a divine being presides over life. You are correct that many of these questions--regarding morality, beauty, evil, and the like--are philosophical ones, but if philosophy has not yet come to a conclusion about God, then neither should science.
Finally, you suggest that the presence of religious arguments "allows no new understanding or predictions". Do you not understand that this is precisely what evolutionary dogma has done to research on the origin of life? This is why ID advocates are up in arms--because the academic mainstream has jumped to a premature conclusion about the origin of life that eliminates God from the equation. If we want science to be pure and accurate, we must seek to remove the intellectual arrogance, financial gain, personal agenda, and (to get theological for a moment) human pride that taints so much research.
It is only through a multi-disciplinary open-mindedness that science can remain pure and truth may be discovered. Now how often do you hear a Christian say that?
Photoshop Elements would have served you better. It has the majority of the editing features of Photoshop (save high-end things like 'curves'); it skips all the print-centric color management features (not usable on the web anyhow); and it cuts the price from $650 to $80. Plus, the files are fully compatible with Photoshop proper; you get Adobe support (for what very little that's worth); and your employees learn and use an interface that is very similar to Photoshop. I suggested Elements for my department's web content producers, and it has served them well on a dime.
In related news, AOL to offer 10,000 free hours for first 30 days.
It makes a mockery of the thousands of hours that designers, programmers and engineers have put into developing such systems.
Oh, does it? So now you can understand why many of us who believe in a good, powerful, intelligent God consider most evolutionary theory to be a mockery of him.
It's not because evolution is particularly bad science; God may very well have used evolutionary processes. But the issue isn't really a scientific one at all; it's a a moral one: giving credit where credit is due. And most evolutionary models remove God from the picture altogether.
My point is, the same principle applies, whether to game developers or to the big guy upstairs.
But a monitor and a cabinet no longer make a good arcade game.
Have you been to a good arcade lately? Say, a Dave & Busters or Gameworks? Arcades are no longer filled with simple cabinets with joysticks. Almost every game is in some way physically interactive. You sit in a car that moves, you dance on a platform, you shoot a machine gun that vibrates, you sit in a turret that spins.In fact, I've noticed that you often don't find the best graphics in the arcades anymore. Graphics don't matter like they used to -- the point of the modern arcade is to give customers an *experience* that they can't get at home.
So as I see it, unless Microsoft opens a new division to create big, physically-interactive games, throwing a cabinet around an Xbox isn't going to gain them much ground.