shoot twice |
12-23-2014 01:33 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAMNMAN
(Post 20335276)
Seems level headed but has much faith in things that cannot be proven and are without evidence. Dawkins is a scientist through and through.
I can't do it, I can't buy into a bunch of esoteric non-sense without much evidence.
Scientific principles are not in question, Rupert only questions the scientific dogmas that abound.
|
Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist. He has a PhD in biochemistry and the body of his work was in cell biology. IN 2012 he was called "one of the brightest Darwinians of his generation."
There's nothing esoteric at all in his research. What he's researching is both consciousness and also how differentiation is established in order to solve the problem of why things take the shapes that they do.
He uses science to analyze science and is very unemotional about it. Where as Dawkins tends to be a long drawn emotion based rant for his ideas and against anyone that questions them.
If you read Sheldrake, he's never denied or disputed the Theory of Evolution. ** BUT ** He's also has never supported it. Instead he quickly points out that Theory of Evolution remains just a theory. And even if it were proven to be factual it in of it self would neither prove nor disprove the existance of a force refered to as God. Evolution would simply disprove claims made in the religious texts of certain religions.
Sheldrake is definately outside the orthodox of current scientific dogma. But so was Copernicus and many many others.
|