He doesn't have a wiki in my native tongue, so I had to chuck google translate at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scheele . The results seem to indicate he is a nobody, but I could be wrong. Also, could anyone provide a better translation of the book title "I am Jesus-fan: but how you become one?"? Without context from sources I've seen before, it's not clear that it's worth my time to read the page you linked to.
I ran into this same problem while trying to read a broad survey of Institutionalist economics papers--the amount of time I can spend reading is limited, and sometimes there's no way to tell if a heterodox work is worth the trouble. Sadly, my default is "no."
It seems google translate was right on with the translation. Doesn't make much sense in dutch either...
He seems a fairly dedicated god-botherer / evangelist, with a few TV programmes, so maybe a semi-celebrity (?)
(disclaimer: I was 11 when I left the Netherlands for New Zealand)
As for the parent comment, the evolution=degeneration theory does not pass my common sense filter: are we that much more degenerate than our 5-million-years-ago ancestors? Seems more likely to be a reactive criticism against Darwin, but (not having read the book, only the intro) provided it makes VALID points that need to be considered, it will (hopefully) aid our understanding as to how we got here, and where we may end up going...
Yeah, obviously if science has made progress since Darwin then that shows that the modern version of Darwin's theory (resulting from, y'know, all that scientific progress) must be wrong.
The reason why scientists accept evolution is not because Darwin was a good scientist or a nice person (although, for the record, general consensus is that he was) but because the evidence for is vastly better than the evidence against. Even if it turned out that Darwin was crazy as a loon, that his belief in evolution came from voices in his head, and that he liked to eat babies for breakfast, it wouldn't change that.
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.
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...
About "theory", if you go down that path, we can say the same about Newton's. Few high school teachers in their right mind will mention that this theory is actually false, displaced by relativity, but nevertheless a good approximation at relatively low levels of energy. They simply present the Newton's three laws of motion as a fact. Unlike Newton's, evolution theory is currently the generally accepted theory. To present it as a fact is even more legitimate. Now, what schools do lack is a general explanation about theories, the certainties (or lack thereof) we have about them, and the changes in the generally accepted set of theories, past and present.
About "silly", I never understood evolution as a path from less intelligent to more intelligent. I always thought it was the survival of the fittest — quite a different concept. For example, I've heard about a animal which at some point in its life just eats its brain, because it's isn't needed anymore (the animal somewhat become a plant). Now, talking about intelligence as such isn't really possible, since "intelligence" is hardly a well defined term, let alone a measurable quantity. Complexity, on the other hand is more measurable. Why do life became more and more complex over time, I do not know. however, I do know that some complexities gave an edge to the concerned species. One of them is the eye.
About Darwin's fake experiments, it already has been said: it doesn't matter. His theory was amended, we have more data, and more peer reviews. Without a relatively high level of plausibility, the evolution theory would have been rejected by now. Even if it means proving the Church wrong. Now, I have not read how the book you linked addresses this catch.
About the perfect intelligence on the beginning of everything, it doesn't matter. It is just beyond science. That this begining was the Big Bang just fits the current observations best. Pretending that life on Earth allways was as complex as it is now is too convoluted right now to be considered a valid theory.
As a final note, I must add that I am not as specialist. So my only choice is to take the generaly accepted set of theories for granted. I have no right to contradict them without a great deal of knowlege in their respective domains. If the author you cited is right, that is sadly not my job to listen to him. That is the job of specialists.
The whole problem here is that "Evolution" means two things. It's well-verified scientific fact that natural selection drives change within a species. What creationists dispute is that natural selection drives organisms to change from one species to another. There is very little evidence for this. If natural selection (and therefore stepwise refinement) is responsible for the creation of new species, the whole idea of a "missing link" would not be novel.
That's cute and all, but your mood is influenced by chemicals (influenced by, or is is beyond the scope of this conversation) and an imbalance in those chemicals will lead to a disorder that you can fix by improving that balance. I'm also not saying loving someone won't do that.
No one says you can solve a malfunctioning liver with love.
edit: Also, depression doesn't just mean being down and the cure for it is 'cheering' up. Depression is an overloaded word.
The idea is that Scheme has been controlled by the expansionists lately and has gotten pretty large and practical.
As for why people don't just use CL, Scheme isn't laden with the historical mistakes that Common Lisp is, Scheme is still capable of evolving, and "large Scheme" is much more approachable to beginners than CL because of DrScheme and other efforts of the PLT people. And some people just like Scheme's approach better.
No I think Common Lisp does have more mistakes than Scheme. But I should have said, "Scheme isn't as laden with mistakes..." And that's partly because most of the current Scheme standard was evolved after the Common Lisp standard was set.
Agreed on your last point, and I recommend trying Clojure out for some little project. It might surprise you how much more succinct it is than Common Lisp. Arc too, from what I've heard.