créationniste comme Francis Collins [fr]

La discussion dans les commentaires de Biologos n’est pas nouvelle, mais je n’arrivais pas à mettre a main dessus. Mes requêtes étaient mal formulées. En faisant le tour de certains textes de Giberson j’ai fini par tomber dessus, et je pense que ceux qui gobent les distorsions des termes du créationniste Jean Staune, créationniste comme l’actuel directeur des NIH, Francis Collins, apprécieront ces informations venant de la source, la fondation de Francis Collins, Biologos.

quantum flapdoodle: God 2.0, Deepak Chopra AND the others (d’Espagnat, Miller, Collins etc.)

At Big Questions Online, a John Templeton Foundation publication, Michael Shermer discuss the use of « quantum flapdoodle » as the basis of Deepak Chopra’s effort to update medieval theology.

I think Shermer lost the main part of the target: the John Templeton Foundation itself. Too close to perceive it?
They do exactly the same thing and their 2009 JTP winner, Bernard d’Espagnat is a perfect illustration of the use of « quantum flapdoodle » to support the idea of a veiled reality where gods may conveniently hide out of reach:

In his nomination of d’Espagnat for the Templeton Prize, Nidhal Guessoum, Chair of Physics at American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, wrote, “He has constructed a coherent body of work which shows why it is credible that the human mind is capable of perceiving deeper realities.”

These perceptions offer, d’Espagnat has said, “the possibility that the things we observe may be tentatively interpreted as signs providing us with some perhaps not entirely misleading glimpses of a higher reality and, therefore, that higher forms of spirituality are fully compatible with what seems to emerge from contemporary physics.”

I asked the question, addressed to Shermer, in the comments under his post, but knowing how the stuff of the Templeton Foundation deal with moderation of comments (and I refer to the way Gary Rosen dealt with one of my comments in the past) I reproduce it here and maybe I should I e-mail[ed] it to Shermer directly.

I have a question for Michael Shermer (but all opinions are welcome): why restrict the « quantum flapdoodle » comment to Deepack Chopra’s God and not extend it to the various ‘flavors’ of spiritualities based on it?

The 2009 John Templeton Prize winner, Bernard d’Espagnat, use much of the same « quantum flapdoodle » to support his view of a ‘veiled reality’ from where the God of Ken Miller or Francis Collins ‘operates’.

What would be the difference, if any, of the use of « quantum flapdoodle »?

wOOt! it did go through the moderation.

Créationnistes

Il me semble que les américains commencent à mûrir sérieusement autour des problèmes liés au créationnisme et à utiliser le terme de façon de plus en plus appropriée. PZ Myers et Jerry Coyne sont de la fête aujourd’hui :

Flashy graphic illustration of the creationism problem

Those are teachers who believe in Intelligent Design.

Yes, they are. And complaining that they aren’t those Discovery Institute frauds because they believe it is their god that does the designing doesn’t get them off the hook, it just makes them plain old creationists.

Selective creationists

That’s why I see selective creationists like Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson and Francis Collins as parting company with modern biological thought.

Autant pour les définitions foireuses de Staune 😉

Scienligion & Robert Wright

Si vous avez loupé les réactions que le papier de Robert Wright « A Grand Bargain Over Evolution » a suscité à travers la blogosphère (WEIT, Pharyngula, The Mermaid’s Tale, The Apple Eater, Sandwalk, etc.), il est fort probable que ce post ne vous intéresse pas.