1. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #180956 by Lu Castro on May 16, 2008 at 7:48 am

I suppose it's a decent review, but of course he can't manage to get through it without characterizing Dawkins as "the Chief Pastor of World Atheism Inc." and eluding to the idea that Dawkins' recent work has been a type of "evangelising". It took one paragraph for Forbes to expose himself as a delicate ego, unable to get through a review of Dawkins' work without sticking a few jabs to someone who may have offended his sky god.

These cheap comparisons likening Dawkins to a hapless, drunken preacher are insulting to anyone who appreciates him for the contributions he's made to modern science.

I don't think we needed his critique to trust that Richard would produce anything unworthy of our attention.

2. How to abandon your God

Comment #139597 by Lu Castro on March 6, 2008 at 7:18 am

[...]becoming perhaps more fluid, interesting, dynamic, unspecified, something you actually want to take into your heart and into your mouth and lick until you find the rich, creamy center and then define that taste for yourself, blissfully independent of what your parents or priest or president tells you, until you reach that point of deeper knowing where you can't help but go a-ha.

I'm not sure why there is so much support for this article. This kind of moderate, "I have my own version of god" trash is less intellectual than the theologians who hang on every word of their pointless old scripts.

I guess I'm being a bit negative, and the fact that he seems secular is positive, but have you ever had a discussion with one of these "spirtitual moderates"? It's impossible. They criticize the organized religions, but somehow justify that they know better than anyone else. That their idea of god is somehow under protection because they made him up in their heads!!!

I don't know. Maybe this type of sprituality is better than that of your traditional faith-head, but it seems intellectually dishonest at best.

3. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127560 by Lu Castro on February 15, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Fister? I just met her!

4. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #124012 by Lu Castro on February 8, 2008 at 6:54 am

The comment below was from a user on the phys.org site. It's hard not to get excited at articles like this, but it's clear that there is most likely a very good explanation...

"Upon further examination, I think he may simply be improving the motor's efficiency by causing a precessional effect on the electrons in the coil of the rotor. Backward magnetic flux is traversing through the motor's shaft acting normally against the rotor's magnetic moment creating a torque which is always normal to the shaft but in the plane of the rotor coil. This torque, in turn, acts on the angular momentum of the rotor in such a way as to cause the electrons to precess around the loop in phase with the magnetic field from the stator (and thus amplifying the magnetic field-flux from the stator when he re-connects the coils at about 60 hertz frequency). Of course, the inefficiencies from the electrical precessions in the loop is why the thing sounds so vibrationally noisy, and I think he could eliminate that vibration inefficiency even further by cooling the rotor coil down with liquid nitrogen (although the nitrogen wouldn't technically improve efficiency as that needs to be cooled and compressed, but efficiency in regards to getting more power out from the amount of power put in)."

5. Queerer Than We Can Suppose: The Strangeness of Science

Comment #112477 by Lu Castro on January 17, 2008 at 8:52 am

I agree...I watch once a week just to restabilize my concept of self and perspective.

Enlightening, to say the least.

6. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #92267 by Lu Castro on November 30, 2007 at 6:55 am

Kathleen is currently 161,896 on the Amazon UK list, so I'm not sure we have to worry about the 13 folks who thought she might have something viable say. Her bitching has fallen on deaf ears.

If any of them stepped up and confronted the tenets of their faith based manure, they'd be regarded with a bit more respect. All they do is whine about how wrong our boys are without offering proper rebuttal.

7. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #54266 by Lu Castro on July 6, 2007 at 7:44 am

Dr. Dawkin's quoted Wise as saying "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

It is clear that this particular avenue is shut down. The purpose of this article is to give an example of how extreme the brainwashing of religion can be. I'm sure that there is little evidence that Wise has not seen, and he was lucid enough to pick through his bible, cut out discrepancies and make a decision. Despite the evidence, he chose the God in his head over logic and reason.

I find the article depressing, but it certainly gives us reason to push for proper education before children are completely hooked on "Gerin Oil". The first step should be to show "Cosmos" to children beginning in 3rd grade. Or perhaps Dr. Dawkins could remake the show with updated data?

I suppose that's wishful thinking!

8. What use is Religion? Part 2

Comment #48286 by Lu Castro on June 7, 2007 at 10:24 am

This "nongenetic heredity" would seem unique to humans. Religion being as old as it is, it's not surprising that it is so successful, and science being as relatively young as it is, it's not too surprising that it lags behind.

This hypothesis is incredibly interesting, and although I'm new to the study of evolutionary biology and Darwinism, I can't help but be fascinated by the possiblities.

9. Natural 'Knowledge' and Natural 'Design'

Comment #47976 by Lu Castro on June 6, 2007 at 7:26 am

I've just begun The Selfish Gene and this has really reved me up. Few things are as alluring as the intricacies of evolution.