The Limitations of Digital Minimalism

blonde girl with phone and iced coffee

People look at you like you’re weird because you don’t have social media, but when you actually step back and look from the outside you realise no, I’m not weird. Spending hours of your time staring at your smart phone, instead of enjoying life is what’s weird… that’s so weird. – Cal Newport

Something that I think almost everyone today can sympathise with is how much time social media and big tech suck out of our lives.

Love it or hate it, no one can deny the fundamental presence of big tech in our modern lives.

If you’re one of the people who has shifted over time from off-handed comments about how much time we spend on social media, to becoming legitimately concerned that it is negatively affecting other aspects of your life, then you’re not alone.

Read moreThe Limitations of Digital Minimalism

15 Answers to Scientific American’s answers to Creationist Nonsense

Editor’s note: This is a huge post. SciAm’s stupid article has, like seriously, 15 points(!), and I’ve interspersed my responses throughout it’s text (SciAm is in blue block quotes). So I’ve provided a contents page at the beginning of this post (with links to each section!), if you can’t bring yourself to read the whole thing… even if I think it’s awesome.

(Also what’s this green block quote? That’s fancy! After three years of blogging I’ve finally started dabbling in source code, so I’ve added some extra features to this post (like a contents page with links!), just as a taste.

So, just know the blue quotes are text taken from the Scientific American article. Green quotes are any other ordinary quotes from other sources, including my own little footnotes)


TL;DR:

  • Scientific American has fallen far from its staunchly Christian roots
  • John Rennie has cowered away from answering actual creationist arguments, and has mostly resorted to tackling weak, outdated, even straw-man arguments such as ‘evolution is just a theory’
  • SciAm’s cowardly refusal to even acknowledge Jonathan Sarfati’s stellar response to the original 2002 publication, proves my second point
  • >15 years since it was originally published, the Scientific American’s article is still a huge pile of vitriolic hog wash

Read more15 Answers to Scientific American’s answers to Creationist Nonsense