You can't be serious: all of his theory is really scientific, at least at the same level as Darwin (but I would say much higher, because he has gone through many discussion/corrections by other scientists).
This book is really hilarious, because it states the complete opposite of Darwin, and is even more convincing than Darwin.
- I sincerely listened to the evolution theory people
- I sincerely listened to the creationist people (but not in the US! In US, they all seem fundamentalists! We here in Europe have a much better religion/science culture; sorry, US).
I'm never interested in defending somebody or something, I'm always interested in the truth (read: ready to change my opinion, and I already did this many many times).
No, Darwin and followers: you don't convince me...
Yes, (european) 'creationists' (they aren't called so stupidly here, BTW): yes, you really convinced me!
P.S. Better have no science at all than bad (read: weak) science.
I insist in the correct term theory, because it is often presented as a fact (especially in school books here in Europe).
I said 'silly' because basically it says: "less intelligent beings evolved into more intelligent beings". Now, this is simply impossible. If you want something less intelligent become more intelligent, you need someone from outside to bring the new intelligence.
It's very interesting that Darwin himself admitted that he faked some of his experiments, just to "make the whole theory work".
So, it's basically very simple: nobody can exclude a perfect Intelligence on the beginning of everything. Call it God, call it how you like, but denying it is not very intelligent...
the evidence for is vastly better than the evidence against
This is simply not true.
There are many scientific books against the evolution theory. I know that I'm not saying something popular when I claim that to me the evolution theory is simply silly. But I don't care to be popular -- instead I care to accept the most reasonable opinion.
Just look at all the things Darwin "didn't want to know", and the progress which science made since Darwin.
IMO, Darwin is simply not to consider a good scientist, and in Darwins book there are some disgusting racist parts, and discriminating parts against the intelligence of women.
Your are a biological machine? Really? Exclusively?
Who did convince you of that? Science?
Science is only science, science very often is wrong, and has to correct itself, sometimes decades, or even centuries later.
I know that I'm not a biological machine. I know that there's a voice inside myself that asks many many more questions than any science will ever be able to answer.
Now, where do these questions come from? Certainly not from my brain. My brain is not able to ask questions beyond its own capabilities.
So, let me repeat the initial question: are you a biological machine, and nothing more?
- spontaneously ask itself where it is coming from
- spontaneously ask itself what it will become after its own
destruction
- having spontaneous thoughts
- having free will
Why do I say spontaneous? Because our thoughts aren't coming from our mind, but from our soul (that is, from the principle of life, which is invisible by nature).
Come on, these are all obvious things; humans, don't believe blindly in science, science is not a religion(!).
A machine could (in theory) more or less be similar to animals, though.
Lying may(!) bring you some advantage, short-term only; but you always have an alternative way: you can tell something great, without lying, but you need your phantasy for doing that.
Depression is the symptom you get when your soul is left without sufficient daily nutrition, happening for a longer period.
Now, what does the soul "eat"? Love! In any form, and there are so many.
Depression is actually exploding in our current times, all over the world. How will future generations judge the health state of our current situation? Hmm..
historical mistakes (regarding CL) is only an opinion, not a fact.
For many aspects it's a huge advantage of CL to not having continuously evolve into something slightly different and only opinionatedly better.
I know both Scheme and CL, and I'll continue to prefer CL for at least the next decade coming, I think.
Meantime, I like all the effort anybody is putting in any kind of Lisp, and I always follow the different attempts (the different Schemes, Arc, Clojure).
This book is really hilarious, because it states the complete opposite of Darwin, and is even more convincing than Darwin.
For the fun of it, go read it!!