Why Intelligent Design is stupid
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
&am... > > 
> > > by Neil deGrasse Tyson
> > > 
> > > This is not strictly in response to this thread, but I couldn't find a more appropriate thread with ID in the title.
> > 
> > That works great for traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish ideas for "Intelligent Design" but it doesn't account for deistic (as in deism) or maltheistic approaches. Though one would ask what the point would be in worshipping either of those kinds of Gods...
> 
> That is why my 'third way' is so comfortable. God is not what religions describe, or atheists attack. A universal mind may not have beneficence, may or may not be all-knowing, or 100% in total control. Yet whatever created the universe and then life, used information and laws, as a universal intelligence would obviously have to use to create.-And I've mentioned it before, but even your third option doesn't have an answer for the question 'why?' as in 'why conceive of' or 'why respect' or 'why worship?'-Looked at another way, we always have lived without our apathetic creator... so why even bother? (no pun intended... BUT...) The "questions" said deity answers, aren't really answered. It's perhaps an emotional satisfaction and nothing more.-I started (and will finish!) your book this summer, I just have some training for work that followed right on the heels of finals last week. If nothing else, its going with me to Mexico this summer...

Why Intelligent Design is stupid
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
&am... > 
> > by Neil deGrasse Tyson
> > 
> > This is not strictly in response to this thread, but I couldn't find a more appropriate thread with ID in the title.
> 
> That works great for traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish ideas for "Intelligent Design" but it doesn't account for deistic (as in deism) or maltheistic approaches. Though one would ask what the point would be in worshipping either of those kinds of Gods...-That is why my 'third way' is so comfortable. God is not what religions describe, or atheists attack. A universal mind may not have beneficence, may or may not be all-knowing, or 100% in total control. Yet whatever created the universe and then life, used information and laws, as a universal intelligence would obviously have to use to create.

Why Intelligent Design is stupid
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
&am... 
> by Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> This is not strictly in response to this thread, but I couldn't find a more appropriate thread with ID in the title.-Good link, btw... I had forgotten about that classic "pleasure palace next to a toxic waste dump" a long time ago....

Why Intelligent Design is stupid
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
&am... 
> by Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> This is not strictly in response to this thread, but I couldn't find a more appropriate thread with ID in the title.-That works great for traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish ideas for "Intelligent Design" but it doesn't account for deistic (as in deism) or maltheistic approaches. Though one would ask what the point would be in worshipping either of those kinds of Gods...

http://news.discovery.com/space/super-civilizations-might-live-off-black-holes-110430.h... 
> No more fanciful than declaring there are multiverses. Brian Greene's new book (The Hidden Reality) is discussed here. It is a reasonable proposal that states such a theory should be considered, since much of the theoretical math leads there. But he is quite clear in his view that it is all speculation and 'not science' at this point, and it may never be proveable:
> 
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/45854-You know I'm not a huge fan of ST...-but knowing that artificial gravity signatures would indicate intelligent life is a tantalizing prospect, and fermilab studies this...

http://news.discovery.com/space/super-civilizations-might-live-off-black-holes-110430.h... more fanciful than declaring there are multiverses. Brian Greene's new book (The Hidden Reality) is discussed here. It is a reasonable proposal that states such a theory should be considered, since much of the theoretical math leads there. But he is quite clear in his view that it is all speculation and 'not science' at this point, and it may never be proveable:-http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/45854