|
R.T Carroll (http://skepdic.com/) dio por concluido el Diccionario Escéptico y posteó un mensaje sorprendente. ¡¡¡Sería interesante que alguien lo tradujera al español!!!
Today I announce the end of The Skeptic's Dictionary.
I did not think I could ever give up my skepticism but I have recently
had an experience that has changed my mind about everything I have come
to disbelieve.
My transformation started out innocently enough. I was reading an
interview with William Dembski in Christianity Today. Yes, I have been a
covert reader for some time now. Anyway, something Dembski said
resonated with me like nothing has resonated with me for a long time. He
said "We don't know what randomness is, or the way we get at randomness
is by knowing what randomness is not. What would happen repeatedly was
you'd find something with a pure random but then you'd find the pattern
in it. Randomness was always a provisional designation until we found
the pattern or design in it. " Eureka!
That was the beginning. The kicker was when I was doing some yard work.
I came in afterward and noticed th
at
there were several weeds stuck to
my socks and shoes. It was like a hammer to the head. I started to see
the patterns. There was clearly a design here. The weeds excreted a
sticky substance that allowed them to cling to my clothes. When I moved
around I carried their seeds with me and had unwittingly deposited them
throughout my yard. Soon, my yard would be crawling with weeds and I
would have been partially to blame. But I wasn't concerned about the
yard. I had a bigger problem. I had seen that randomness could not
account for the weeds' behavior. Yes, behavior. What else could it be?
The weeds clearly know what they are doing. They didn't just
accidentally cling to me. There is no way this was just matter randomly
and meaninglessly behaving in a way that looked like design. This was
truly design at work.
I was forced to rethink everything I disbelieve in. If weeds can act
with intentions, then how could I deny that
the
fluctuations in random
event generators (REGs) could be random? I couldn't. I had to admit that
perhaps there is something to those experiments that show that REGs
went orderly during Princess Diana's funeral but not during Mother
Teresa's. The temporary lack of randomness might well indicate a global
consciousness and a preference for certain kinds of women.
Other patterns started to emerge from the randomness. Wherever there is
order there is design. Dembski is right. I don't know why he took so
many books and pages to say such a simple truth. But I am glad he did.
Farewell skeptics. I'll see you in Hell.
R. T. Carroll
April 1, 2004 |