Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message

To cast science as a
belief system is to completely misunderstand it.

I agree. Science is not a belief system. It only serves that function for
those who distort its proper role and function. Perhaps Scientism is a
better term.

Ed T.

In article . net, AJ
Sutters wrote:

Believe what you want. Defend what you want.

That's the thing about scientists. They're not supposed to "believe
what they want" (not to say that none of them ever do). They're
supposed to believe only what they see, or find, or figure out, and
that only conditionally.

If I could believe what I wanted, I would believe in a kinder universe
that offers more in the way of care and solace for its creatures. I
don't see a whole lot of that though.

--
Joe Bergeron

http://www.joebergeron.com

In article . net, AJ
Sutters wrote:

Believe what you want. Defend what you want.

That's the thing about scientists. They're not supposed to "believe
what they want" (not to say that none of them ever do). They're
supposed to believe only what they see, or find, or figure out, and
that only conditionally.

If I could believe what I wanted, I would believe in a kinder universe
that offers more in the way of care and solace for its creatures. I
don't see a whole lot of that though.

--
Joe Bergeron

http://www.joebergeron.com

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
And we need to
get away from the phrase "Theory of Evolution," because "theory" is a
word that the religious right has seized upon and twisted the meaning
of. I like the name "Property of Evolution," because I maintain that
evolution is a property of life -- evolving is simply what living
things do.

I like "Property of Evolution" - though whenever I get into these
conversations, I point out that it's the "Theory of Gravity" too - and no
one is saying that (macro level, non-relativistic) gravity doesn't work as
Newton described.

---
Dave Boll
http://www.daveboll.com/

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
And we need to
get away from the phrase "Theory of Evolution," because "theory" is a
word that the religious right has seized upon and twisted the meaning
of. I like the name "Property of Evolution," because I maintain that
evolution is a property of life -- evolving is simply what living
things do.

I like "Property of Evolution" - though whenever I get into these
conversations, I point out that it's the "Theory of Gravity" too - and no
one is saying that (macro level, non-relativistic) gravity doesn't work as
Newton described.

---
Dave Boll
http://www.daveboll.com/

"Edward" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message

To cast science as a
belief system is to completely misunderstand it.

I agree. Science is not a belief system. It only serves that function
for
those who distort its proper role and function. Perhaps Scientism is a
better term.

How about, "Scientology?"

*s*******

"Edward" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message

To cast science as a
belief system is to completely misunderstand it.

I agree. Science is not a belief system. It only serves that function
for
those who distort its proper role and function. Perhaps Scientism is a
better term.

How about, "Scientology?"

*s*******

Davoud (that's me):
And we need to
get away from the phrase "Theory of Evolution," because "theory" is a
word that the religious right has seized upon and twisted the meaning
of. I like the name "Property of Evolution," because I maintain that
evolution is a property of life -- evolving is simply what living
things do.

Dave & Janelle:
I like "Property of Evolution" - though whenever I get into these
conversations, I point out that it's the "Theory of Gravity" too - and no
one is saying that (macro level, non-relativistic) gravity doesn't work as
Newton described.

That's exactly the point; the existence of gravity as you have
described it is not a contentious issue, even if some of its workings
(the "negative gravity" that is accelerating the expansion of the
universe, e.g.) are not settled, so its name is less important.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Davoud (that's me):
And we need to
get away from the phrase "Theory of Evolution," because "theory" is a
word that the religious right has seized upon and twisted the meaning
of. I like the name "Property of Evolution," because I maintain that
evolution is a property of life -- evolving is simply what living
things do.

Dave & Janelle:
I like "Property of Evolution" - though whenever I get into these
conversations, I point out that it's the "Theory of Gravity" too - and no
one is saying that (macro level, non-relativistic) gravity doesn't work as
Newton described.

That's exactly the point; the existence of gravity as you have
described it is not a contentious issue, even if some of its workings
(the "negative gravity" that is accelerating the expansion of the
universe, e.g.) are not settled, so its name is less important.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

"Joe Bergeron" wrote in message
ed...
In article . net, AJ
Sutters wrote:

Believe what you want. Defend what you want.

That's the thing about scientists. They're not supposed to "believe
what they want" (not to say that none of them ever do). They're
supposed to believe only what they see, or find, or figure out, and
that only conditionally.

That's their fundamental problem- they simply can't believe in something
that can't be detected, yet there are things existing in such a way. We
like to think of ourselves as being an advanced society but what if to
someone else we are like an amoeba? Do you think we would even be able to
recognize that intelligence, let alone understand it? Think of the amoeba-
just how would we go about communicating with it? Does it actually see and
understand what we are even though we are right in front of it? Something
to think about. The answers we seek might be right in front of our very
eyes (literally!) but we don't see or detect it because we're far too
primitive. Wouldn't that be a joke! However, it is possible and likely.


If I could believe what I wanted, I would believe in a kinder universe
that offers more in the way of care and solace for its creatures. I
don't see a whole lot of that though.

If you were raising a colony of ants and a group of them decided to get into
a fight over food, how would you stop it? Are you going to interfere by
using a toothpick to move apart several ants? How would the rest of them
react? Would the ants continue to have "free will" after witnessing your
interference?

AJ

--
Joe Bergeron

http://www.joebergeron.com