From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Totally Unrelated Drivel....
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:07:14 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Sep29.161032.15089@nosc.mil> clarkk@nosc.mil (Kevin D. Clark) writes:

[Example of identical twins, one gay, one straight.  Question: what
are the implications for the nature vs. nurture debate?]

See the soc.motss FAQ, question 221 and following for information on
brain differences.

Please also take further debate on this to soc.motss.  It is not
really relevant to the paranormal.

> 2. For those of you who may not have seen it yet, Time magazine just
>    sent out a special issue called "Beyond the Year 2000-What to
>    Expect in the New Millenium".

[One article in particular is of interest]

>    The article is titled "Kingdoms to Come" and discusses briefly
>    what religion and faith might be like in 2092.  The author is
>    Richard N.  Ostling. [... Anyone heard of him?]  Anyway, the
>    article describes a world where religion is somewhat similar to
>    that of today with the so-called mainstream religions
>    (Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) still
>    strong, but the smaller sects having dwindled to almost
>    nonexistence.  [... Quoting from the article]

The trend is in the other direction, and there are no signs that it is
slowing down.

>    "The end of atheism and agnosticism became inevitable as soon as
>    computer calculations made improbable the odds that random
>    natural selection could be the sole explanation for the ever
>    increasing intricacies found in biology.

Sounds completely bogus to me.  Computer calculations have already
shown exactly the opposite, and simulations are already used by
evolutionary biologists to study the population patterns where
different survival stratagies are pursued by different individuals.
The best-known example is Robert Axelrod's book "The Evolution of
Co-operation", which is well worth reading.  See also Douglas
Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" column either in Scientific American
or the collected columns in his book of the same title for a good
summary of Axelrod's work.

Basically this is the Argument by Design, an old Creationist standby.

>    "Equally influential was the discovery of multiple universes,
>    which astronomers found at the macrocosmic level and physicists
>    detected in the microcosmic.  Science thus established the
>    current Age of Faith, re-creating the Creator.  Nowadays, only
>    the fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (pg 61-any typos
>    mine).

The macrocosmic universes make no sense.  How are astronomers supposed
to find multiple universes?  If they can see it, it is by definition
in our universe.

It is just possible that astronomers and astrophysicists will find
phenomena that can only be explained by some kind of inter-universe
gateway of the sort beloved by Star Trek (TM) scriptwriters.  But see
below on the relevance to religion.

The microcosmic universe idea sounds like a mangling of current ideas
in quantum physics.  Briefly, some theories seem to suggest that
universes are continously happening as quantum fluctuations on the
scale of 10e-33 cm.  It might be that our universe is a similar sort
of fluctuation.  However if universes are happening all the time just
from the laws of physics then this seems to remove the need for God as
a creator, rather than requiring him.

>    Since this quote relates so well to many of the topics which appear on
>    this newsgroup, I felt to compelled to ask: Is this a probable future for
>    us?

No.  Its just another load of Creationist Crapola.  There is no
evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against it.  Of course,
predicting the future is a risky buisness, but I would put the odds
against these predictions very high indeed.

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic