On YouTube and elsewhere I repeatedly see familiar statements that I want to respond to. I intend to evolve this page as a set of useful responses that conform to the YouTube constraint of 500 characters.
Feel free to exploit this material without acknowledgement, editting it if necessary.
| Trigger | Text |
|---|---|
| Origins of the universe and/or life | |
origin of matter big bang fine tuning needs god Deist & Theist gods |
The problem of theism is that the question of the origin of matter / big bang can have a Deist, rather than a Theist, god as the answer. Theists often divert attention from "is there a listening, caring, god" to a a discussion of whether a god was needed to start the universe. There is NO logic to show that a god that started the universe, if it existed, would be a listening, caring, god like the Christian God. |
| Fred Adams of University of Michigan Ann Arbor has remodelled stars, and calculated that stars form much easier than previous estimated. His work will appear soon in Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. Previous models were unrealistically limited, and varied only one characteristic at a time. Adams allows a few to vary. About a quarter of resulting universes had energy-generating stars. Some are strange, and life would be very different. |
|
abiogenesis origin of life evolution & abiogenesis |
PZ Myers makes a good case for including abiogenesis with evolution. (See Pharyngula blog and search for "abiogenesis"). He refers to Nick Matzke's summary of scientific progress on this topic. (Google for "What critics of critics of neo-creationists get wrong"). This is a respectable area of science in which progress is being made. It is a gap that is slowly being filled, and not suitable for a god! |
| Morality, free will, purpose, meaning of life | |
origin of morality what do atheists offer? objective morality making up morality |
People, including religious people, typically pick-n-choose parts of their moralities. If I know someone is a Christian, I don't know whether they are for or against: abortion; contraception; stem cell research; gay partnerships; equal opportunities for women; etc. But we all (including atheists) tend to be constrained in our behaviour by: law; human nature; moral zeitgeist; upbringing; local community norms; etc. This builds a morality that each of us starts with. |
| Nowadays we implicitly recognise "New Commandments" that didn't come from the Bible or the Koran. (Some of the activities concerned were rife in those texts): - Do not rape - Do not own slaves - Do not abuse children - Do not deny the nature of the universe - Do not discriminate on grounds of ... (various) Religion often impedes the development of important moral principles. When religious people helped with these "New Commandments", it was typically in spite of their religion. |
|
| We are all constrained by law and human nature. We evolved to coexist in communities of perhaps 150 or so. Some instinctive behaviours followed, such as reciprocal altruism. The same instincts are still there, and account for many acts of altruism in larger communities. Our brains have evolved mechanisms which help us achieve empathy. Once we can "put oneself into another's shoes", a lot follows from that. |
|
| Morality has value to those of us who enjoy living in societies where we can coexist and help one-another get the most out of life. Life isn't always a zero-sum game - often it is a win-win game. I feel sorry for anyone who feels "if it was just some cosmic accident then there really is nothing to value". That implies an inability to see value in simply being alive! I am confident that it was, in effect, "just some cosmic accident", but I enjoy life and what I do. |
|
| I'm in the UK. In 2005, only 38% of people surveyed responded saying "I believe in God". There is no evidence that the version of morality of the rest causes problems. The Church of England, a Christian denomination, is tearing itself apart over women bishops and gay partnerships. Each month there are arrests of Muslims for inciting violence or aiding terrorism (etc). There is no evidence of objective morality here, just problematic subjective cherry-picking from many moralities. |
|
| What IS religion's "foundation for morality"? Whatever a person's religion, most religious people in the world have a contradictory religion with different moral values. Islam, Jainism, and Christianity, and even different denominations within them, have different moral values. Religious people often pick-n-choose moral values. Eg. keeping the sabbath, using contraception & other aspects of sex. There is often an unpredictable subjective selection and tweaking of prescribed morality. |
|
| Most religious people in the world are not Christians. What would you say if they asked you "What do Christians offer?" This isn't simply a dispute between Christians and atheists, (except locally), but (from a Christian perspective) between Christians and the rest. What does "objective morality" mean in a world of very many contradictory religions and denominations? Where Islam, Jainism, and Christianity have different moralities? What is the "objective source"? |
|
| Religions were man made, and were badly communicated. Religious people can't go back to the source for clarification, so they have to produce their own interpretations and extrapolations. Atheists are grounded in the real world. We don't get the chance to use the excuses: "God told me to do it"; "I thought I was doing God's will"; "Satan (or the Devil) made me do it". We have to take personal responsibility: I'm an atheist: "The buck stops here"! |
|
emotions absence of emotions emptying prisons |
Emotions evolved as one of the methods of influencing our behaviour. Those who didn't experience key emotions were less likely to survive and reproduce. (Autistic people can have serious problems coping with our world). Emotions such as love, disgust, fear, happiness, anger, embarrassment, shame, all play their part in survival and reproduction. They encourage us to seek some things and avoid others. |
| The threat of prison, if necessary reinforced by experience of it, can influence our behaviour both by rational thought and by emotion. Emotions such as fear, embarrassment, shame, guilt, anxiety, (and others), can all be caused by the possibility of prison. Emotional people are quite likely to be influenced by these. A separate topic: atheists assume we only have one life, and typically we don't want to spend it in prison. |
|
| If we don't punish people when they do wrong, they will often do wrong. If we punish people when they do wrong, they are less likely to do wrong. That is blindingly obvious! The difference is: I see the aim of criminal justice system to be to reduce or eliminate crime. Punishment has a role to play. Some people see it as a form of revenge or retribution. I find that attitude a bit disturbing. |
|
| no meaning or purpose | What is this need to have an external purpose and meaning to life? Are people worried that they will commit suicide without these? Fear not - life is worth living and enjoying without these! A survey in 2005 suggested that 52% of Europeans believed in God. That means 235 million of us didn't. We are not all glum and desperate! |
| free will | How can anyone determine whether they have free will? If one person does, presumably all do (and vice versa). (That is, it appears unlikely that religious people have free will and atheists don't! Do people lose free will if they become atheists?) Yet opinions differ. This suggests that the very question isn't a good one. In practice, we might as well all act as though we have it, which is typically what we do anyway! |
| For interest, a summary of my belief about free will is: - What I will decide to do next week is inherently uncomputable, even by me. (This is primarily because of the chaotic nature of the universe). - After I have made a decision next week, it would in principle be possible to show that every particle that influenced my decision was fully determined by the laws of physics. This may be a trivialisation of Dennett's "Freedom Evolves"; I'm not sure. |
|
| Speaking for myself, I don't want anything other than the chemical activities resulting: - from heredity, - from experiences (before and after birth) including my physical and mental capability and memories resulting from these, - and from current sensory input, affecting what I think. Because if there was something else, in what way would it really be ME? |
|
| Atheism, atheists | |
proof of no god weak atheism |
Atheists rarely if ever claim they can prove there is no God. (Richard Dawkins himself has made it clear that he can't do so). We typically say something like "we don't believe gods exist". Some have a stronger position such as believing that gods don't exist. You appear not to understand what atheists say and don't say. |
| me | I express weak atheism, but I express strong non-participation of gods in the universe, depending on the context: WEAK: I don't believe in gods. STRONG: I believe that the universe operates solely via unintelligent forces and processes. I believe that religions are man-made, without divine input. I believe that when you pray, you are talking to yourself; that miracles don't happen; and that when our brains die, we will never experience anything again. ---------- I have used those statements (above) for a long time, and I am comfortable with them. (They work for me!) I have just attempted to reformulate them into pure weak/strong atheist positions. Here is an approximation: I express weak atheism towards Deist gods. (Those that "light the blue touch paper and stand clear"). I express strong atheism towards Theist gods. (Those that act upon your prayers, perform miracles on your behalf, and/or provide an afterlife). |
self centred atheists in church humanism |
We don't believe we are the special end-point of creation. We don't believe anything created the universe for our sakes. We don't believe that there is a special environment called "heaven" devised specially for us. We accept that we are lucky to be here. We accept that we don't have dominion over animals because we ARE animals. We are not the self-centred ones! |
| "Atheism" is about whether or not gods exist. It isn't about whether religions are good or bad. These questions are separate. Atheists at least say they don't believe gods exist. Some atheists go to church, for example for the social activities or to be with their families. Others despise religions. Others are in-between. Some atheists are humanists, with social activities. |
|
| Atheism: harm, eugenics, atheist regimes | |
atheism leads to harm eugenics Stalin Hitler |
This isn't simply a battle between religions and atheism. (Most religious people in the world refute Christianity! They are a bigger "army" against it than atheism!) This is a battle between enlightened and unenlightened positions. Google for "dimensions of enlightenment" for more. Stalinism, Maoism, Nazism, the Inquisition, and religious fundamentalism, were unenlightened. We need more evidence-based reasoning and critical thinking, and less dogma and doctrine thinking. |
| Instead of looking to history, look to comparable nations this century. Europe has about 490 million people. A survey in 2005 quoted: "I believe there is a God": 52% "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force": 27% (132 million) "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force": 18% (88 million) Lack of specific religions, and atheism itself, are mainstream. Is there evidence that this causes massive problems? No. It wouldn't in the US either. |
|
| "Evolution by human selection" preceded Darwin by a long time. THAT was the basis for eugenics. Darwin identified a totally different mechanism, "evolution by natural selection". That was nothing to do with humans doing the selection, and provided no logical or moral support for eugenics. And what has the above got to do with whether "evolution by natural selection" is the way things work? The evidence is overwhelming that it is, whether we like it or not. |
|
| Evolution: evidence, fossils | |
proving evolution not enough fossils macroevolution ring species |
It depends on what you mean by "prove". I believe "proof" and "prove" are better reserved for mathematics and logic. If we are talking about the nature of the universe, we should be talking about the weight of evidence, verification of models to a high probability, etc. "Faith" typically means "belief without (sufficient) evidence". Evolution satisfies the "weight of evidence" (etc) criteria. |
| In fact, the modern science of evolution is hardly dependent on fossils at all. Challenges to evolution need to pay far more attention to the tools, models, and evidence of the last decade or two. Now that it is "easy" to sequence the genome of an extant species, it is becoming possible to work backwards through the evolutionary tree, in effect deducing more and more of the genomes of historical species. The tree is being shown to be consistent. |
|
| It cannot be over-emphasised just how well-established the science of evolution is, how much evidence there is for it, how modern and up-to-date that evidence is, and how fast, and to what depth, the science of evolution is enriching our understanding of the life on Earth over the last few billion years. Trying to defend specialised religious beliefs against evolution is equivalent to trying to protect your house against a lava flow by standing in front of it! |
|
| A useful example of how microevolution accumulates into macroevolution is the realisation of the "ring species". Creatures are in a geographical ring, and adjacent creatures can normally inter-breed. But there is a discontinuity, where adjacent creatures don't inter-breed, and so are different species. So: A inter-breeds with B, B with C .... Y with Z, but Z doesn't inter-breed with A. In effect, B, C ... Y are transitional variants between A and Z. But they are all still living! |
|
learning about evolution directed evolution no foresight |
If you are genuinely interested, get hold of an undergraduate textbook, for example "Evolution" by Mark Ridley. It is hard work - the amount of evidence is massive, and covers many different fields; there is some mathematics in it; and there are lots of references that can be followed up. (In that book, only 3 of about 700 references are to Darwin - it is a modern, ongoing, science). If you are NOT prepared to put in the work, you will have to accept summaries from others. |
| If the universe re-ran, there may be no intelligent life. Then discussions like this couldn't take place. If it re-ran and there was intelligent life, it wouldn't be human life. We might be communicating by brain-to-brain radio, or via semi-intelligent tentacles. Evolution is NOT about pure chance. Please don't use the ludicrous "making a 747 from a scrap-yard" argument! |
|
neuroscience neurons & thought mind/body dualism |
Neuroscience & study of brain damage are revealing evidence to the contrary. Temporal lobe epilepsy can cause hyperreligiosity & emotional responses to religious words. Drugs affecting neurons can change or inhibit thought. Electric probes in the brain can cause recall of memories & hearing music. MRI scans can show neuronal activity when people are asked to think of various things. Including thinking about religion, loved ones, & music. ---------- Some more things: There is research into how genetic impact on neurons can affect the way people think. People with language problems or emotional problems. And into diseases affecting neurons, such as dementia. There is research comparing how humans & our cousins such as chimps think, studying differences & similarities. Part of this is trying to find genetic changes that account for these, including studying the influence of these on the brain. |
| Science: theories, models, evidence | |
scientific theory components of science |
That is an over-simplification that omits some important aspects. A typical scientific theory comprises laws, processes, and explanatory & predictive models, that are supported by evidence. So key parts of the theory of evolution are the "common descent" model and the "natural selection" process. (And they are supported by evidence). As Rutherford implied, evidence alone is just stamp collecting. |
| rules of evidence | The rules for evidence depend on the circumstances: - To understand the nature of the universe in a practical, we use scientific evidence. - To resolve conflicts with society, for example about who has privileges at the expense of others, or about what people can do, we use court evidence. - If no one else is affected, it is up to the person concerned. |
| Gods: plurality, prayer, gaps | |
evolution versus religion evolution = atheism |
Many Christians accept evolution because they don't believe that it encroaches into such things. In your case, what it appears to encroach into is not the existence of God, but your particular belief in some parts of the Old Testament that don't reflect on the existence of God. (Is evolution incompatible with the New Testament?) |
| Many (perhaps most?) people who believe in Jesus & the Christian God accept evolution. It isn't your belief in "the resurrection of Christ" (etc) that provides the incompatibility. It is your belief in some other parts of the text that is incompatible. Other Christians disagree. Why do YOU think those particular parts are right? |
|
| Some scientists working on evolution are religious. Many religions organisations and clergy accept evolution. Evolution is NOT fixed to atheism. Only certain specialised versions of religions, (mainly versions of Christianity and Islam), refute evolution. People who believe in those versions are "opposed" by lots of Christians and Muslims as well as by most scientists. |
|
God is the creator disbelieving aliens and gods |
What about Allah? Islam claims Allah created the heavens and the earth. Islam claims Allah is the God of Abraham. In fact, Islam claims that the Bible was corrupted by Satan, and Mohammed had the task of publishing the corrections. Is Allah the same God? Is he a non-identical twin (he doesn't have a son)? Many Hindus believe Brahma or Vishnu is the creator. |
| I don't know whether aliens exist. I hope they do, and I'm in favour of SETI. I don't believe aliens are having any effect on us and our world. I believe we should get on with our lives without worrying about them, unless evidence, or aliens themselves, arrive. The same apply to all the gods that are worshipped across the world. |
|
resoning needs god |
Our reasoning evolved as a result of helping us stay alive and reproduce. In other words, within the bounds of early human existence, it typically worked. We know that outside those bounds it often fails, so we tend to use artificial supplements, which we hone in the light of experience. |
I'll pray for you (for how long?) god is good |
Around the world, some 26,500 children die every day. That is equivalent to: 1 child dying every 3 seconds 18 children dying every minute A 2004 Asian Tsunami occurring every week An Iraq-scale death toll every 15–36 days Almost 10 million children dying every year Some 60 million children dying between 2000 and 2006 |
god of the gaps gaps are getting smaller science can't disprove god |
Science is slowly showing that we can understand the nature of the universe without invoking any of the gods that people believe in. The "eye" was claimed to need god. Now its evolution can be explained without gods. We are gradually understanding the evolution of the immune system and the flagellum. |
| We are gradually finding that a universe with gods appears to be indistinguishable from one without gods. This is changing religious views about the roles of gods. Creationists think that kinds of animals were created. ID proponents claim that god helps with areas that they believe evolution can't account for. Some ID proponents such as Michael Behe even accept common descent, although it was clear in the Dover courtroom that he was out of date with science. |
|
| Theistic evolutionists accept there are no such problem areas, but appear to believe that gods steers thing, that would have worked anyway, in a different direction. Decade by decade, the opportunities and roles of gods get smaller. Science has already addressed the question "does intercessory prayer work", and found that it doesn't help with patients undergoing heart surgery. Probably more research addressing effects claimed by some religious people will be done. |
|
| 20 years ago I used to say "if gods exist they don't affect us". In other words, I didn't (and don't) deny the existence of irrelevant gods. But I found, when talking to religious people, that they had no interest in gods that didn't affect us. THEIR God affected us! (The gods I was talking about were not the Christian God, or Allah, or the Hindu gods). And gods that affect us can be tested by science. The process may not be godless. But it would be an irrelevant god. |
|
| Religions: plurality, memes | |
many gods many religions coexistence |
More useful Wikipedia topics: Major religious groups; List of religions and spiritual traditions; List of groups referred to as cults; List of new religious movements; List of Christian denominations; List of deities; Names of God; People who have been considered deities World Christian Database: "... every day some two or three new religions are formed, and ... in the contemporary world some ten thousand religions are currently practiced". |
| My model for coexistence is "Religions are hobbies". More precisely, religious practices are hobbies. My assertion is that if all religious practices were treated like other hobbies by the state, by religious organisations, by religious people themselves, and by atheists, much of the conflict in the world would dissipate, without depriving adults of their human rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. "... IF ..."! Ha! |
|
| memes and religion | Memes don't: - change the way the universe as a whole operates. - cause things to happen externally when you pray - cause miracles to happen. - provide a life after death. Anyone who wants those things to happen, or even believes they do, wouldn't satisfied with memes! |
| Christianity: contradictions, types of Creationism | |
types of creationism anti-evolution |
There are several contradictory versions of Creationists: Among Christians there are Young Earthers, Old Earthers, Intelligent Design proponents, and others. These are significantly different, and differ from mainstream Christianity too. There may be no Young Earthers among Muslims. (Many are not Creationists). Some Muslims favour ID, because the Designer is Allah. Some don't, because Allah directly created everything. Then there are Creationists in other religions too. |
See the following: |
|
| contradictions in Christianity | There are 100s of hits from Google, omitting similar hits, for: contradictions in Christianity contradictions in the Bible contradictions in Islam contradictions surrounding Jesus contradictions surrounding Mohammed There is lots of unresolved controversy and discussion. Some people believe: in the unity of God & Jesus; he was the son but they are separate; he wasn't the son; he didn't exist; and various other views. |
| Some people believe: - in the unity of God & Jesus; or - he WAS the son but they are separate; or - he wasn't the son; or - he didn't exist; or - various other views. Try these Wikipedia topics, then go from there: Jesus; Christianity; Christian denomination; Historicity of Jesus; New Testament; Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible; Christian apologetics; Creationism; Catholic; Protestantism |
|
| Presuppositional apologetics, Transcendental arguments | |
reasoning needs god arguing assuming god exists |
This argument in the video sounds like "Presuppositional apologetics", and even somewhat like a "Transcendental argument". I consider these to be mainly debating tricks that put the opponent on the back foot by setting an unexpected agenda. Their well-known circularity makes them valueless for determining the nature of the universe. They are obviously vulnerable to the charge that ANY one of class of gods would do. But more simply they don't use agreed premises. |
Transcendental Arguments Presuppositional Apologetics |
I am reminded of "Transcendental Arguments - An Essay" by John Frame. It revealed the crackpot pseudo-logic of Transcendental Arguments, added to the inherent circularity of Presuppositional Apologetics: "Van Til developed his own transcendental argument. He maintained that Christian theism is the presupposition of all meaning, all rational significance, all intelligible discourse. Even when someone argues against Christian theism, Van Til said, he presupposes it...." ---------- "A transcendental argument makes a stronger claim: that causality presupposes God. The difference ... is that in the latter case God's existence is implied either by the assertion or the denial of causality. That is, not only does the existence of causality imply the existence of God, but even to deny (intelligibly, if it were possible) the existence of causality would be to invoke a framework of meaning that presupposes God’s existence...." Crackpot pseudo-logic! |
| Atheists and intelligence and science | |
scientists and atheism intelligence and atheism |
In a 1998 survey of "Leading US scientists", they mostly rejected God. The surveyed scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65% and 69%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79% and 76%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. |
| Word games | |
definition of atheist definition of religion redefinition of the word atheist atheism is a religion |
The only safe generalisation about atheists is "we do not believe that gods exist". It is futile to try to redefine and distort "atheism" in the ways that so many religious people do. It doesn't change anything significant in the real world. It doesn't change or illuminate people's beliefs. It doesn't change the evidence or lack of it for the existence of gods. It is simply talking a different language and inhibiting communication. |
| You are playing word games of no significance in the real world. Your different meanings of words don't change anything significant in the real world. They don't change or illuminate people's beliefs. They don't change the evidence or lack of it for the existence of gods. My beliefs and lacks of belief preceded my use of the word "atheist". "Atheist" is simply a convenient summary, useful in conversation. No change you make will change my need or otherwise to justify what I believe. |
|
In ENGLISH, typical definitions of "religion" are incompatible with atheism. |
|
| My position is "I don't believe gods exist". There is no onus on me, based on that lack of belief, "to prove that God does NOT exist". Note that whatever games people play with the meaning of the word "atheist", this doesn't change our beliefs. These words are simply labels that conveniently SUMMARISE our beliefs in everyday speech. They don't DICTATE our beliefs. |
|
| Humour | |
cats eyes closed or open humour |
A preacher meets a young boy with a box full of newly born kittens. "What kind of kittens do you have there?" he asked the boy. "They're Christian kittens" the boy replied. So the preacher smiles approvingly and walks along. Two weeks later he meets the same boy and asks "How are those Christian kittens doing?" The boy says "Oh, they're not Christian kittens anymore". The preacher exclaims "What ... why not?!?" The boy says "Well, now their eyes are open and they're atheists". |
| Intelligent Design as science | |
Intelligent Design science is too naturistic ID is unfairly teated science can't investigate gods and the supernatural |
I am familiar with science that has investigated telepathy, pre-cognition, psycho-kinesis, and intercessory prayer. It is perfectly possible to conduct scientific research where it isn't even known what the nature of part of the system is. But science relies on testing its models, so that the models themselves can be validated, and so that others can confirm the results in order to reduce errors. It should make predictions, both for testing purposes and simply to be useful. ---------- Science therefore has to model & predict effects on whatever we can examine with the tools we have. We only have tools to examine the material world (in a WIDE sense), so for the moment that HAS to be the scope of science. Anyone wanting science to examine beyond that scope has the responsibility of ensuring that suitable methods for doing so are developed. It isn't valid to criticise telepathy-science for not examining "mind stuff" without helping with "mind stuff analysers "! ---------- One version of ID (Behe) claims that, while common descent is true, an intelligent designer was needed to bridge some blockers to natural selection caused by irreducible complexity. How can science investigate that claim? Without an "intelligent designer analyser ", science can only test its effects on the world it CAN examine. This is the world of DNA and its consequences, etc. (Bodies are consequences of DNA. Therefore, so are fossils, oxygen in the air, etc). ---------- So science has to examine living (or long dead) things, or sometimes the apparent ABSENCE of them, and draw conclusions. Do we KNOW a predicted thing is truly absent, or might it just not have been found yet? Do we KNOW that a certain effect is truly irreducibly complex, or is that just a hasty judgment based on temporary ignorance? There is no consensus that science has hit a block that makes an intelligent designer necessary. ID hasn't provided a more predictive alternative. ---------- Work on the paranormal has been published in peer-reviewed journals. I believe work on intercessory prayer has been too (American Heart Journal). These are not mainstream "naturalistic" topics, so it CAN be done. Two reasons for doing science & publishing results are: to discover & explain a new phenomenon; or to explain something that can't currently be explained (well). ID appears to do neither. It doesn't explain the "intelligent designer". It doesn't replace a known block. ---------- An ID claim is that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and so evidence of an intelligent designer. But potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for the bacterial flagellum. And the Type III secretory system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components, meaning that it is much less likely to be irreducibly complex. The gaps are slowly closing! ---------- The particular way that science attempts to understand the nature of the universe requires that it restrict itself to what can be examined, predicted, and tested. Other systems of understanding are free to work outside this scope. If they do, they are not entitled to call themselves science, because that would be confusing. ---------- Intelligent Design is currently working outside the scope of what can be examined, predicted, and tested. So it cannot claim to be science, and will typically be excluded from science arenas. It is free to work outside this scope, and to be published in non-science media where they exist. What it can't do, however, is change the scope of science to match its own methods. The world benefits from the current scope of science, for example in predictability and extensibility. ---------- One option available to Intelligent Design is to publish outside the science arena, which it has been doing to a considerable extent. It has gained more publicity that way than typical science research! Another option is to constrain itself to the scope of science and publish within the science media. This would require that it provide predictions that can be tested, and that its results could be replicated, which are features of science. It appears not to be pursuing this option. |