|
effyleven (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
So, it isn't JUST the success of Religious Fundamentalism in making a belief in the Truth of Science an act punishable in Hell as the Ultimate Godless-ness.... there is also this GENUINE failure of science and technology to provide what we REALLY need.I mean, would you swap cell phones for a future free from Cancer and Aids for everyone on the planet[??] because I would... LIKE A SHOT!
effyleven (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
No. I'm saying people's faith in science is diminished because it hasn't come up with solutions that people desperately want, despite an aweful lot of money being spent on research.Darwin GAVE us Evolution, [which nobody particularly wanted, brilliant 'though it is] and he gave it on a plate, for nix.... But no amount of money has yet bought a world free of cancer, famine, etc. etc. This has disillusioned a great many of the less intelligent, even in developed countries like the States.
chefrick03 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Is what you are saying that...were not for innumerable possiblities, cancer (etc.) would be a thing of the past?Is that correct?
effyleven (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The belief in science as objective truth is ALREADY undermined in America. Religious Fundamentalism has been partially responsible... also the failure of science to provide solutions to the more intractable problems.. like world hunger, and disease control..(cancer research is miles behind where we might have expected it to be, 50 years ago)
mooseflier (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Is he not mooseflier. And if so please tell us how."Of course he isn't... jesus christ, he's a creationist! In other words, he's ignorant on the subject of biology, zoology, anatomy, and the other scientific fields one would need to reject in order to reject evolution."Is he not?" ...what a stupid question!
mooseflier (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
He (Dawkins) may be a smart-ass from someone's point of view. Likewise, Miller could be considered a smart-ass from someone else's point of view.What does this characteristic have to do with evolution... with science? Nothing. It's a standard ad-hom attack on the scientist... as we know, this attack usually points to a weak point in the argument attempting to be made.What does God have to do with evolution? Again, nothing. Most people who accept evolution are in fact Christians. Period.
JRserver (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I am by no means a preachy holly-roller, but you couldn't be more wrong. Believing in God is different from believing in flying pigs because you can't put an earthly face on it like you can a flying pig. And if there is no God, how did the idea of it get started. why wouldn't somebody thoudands of years ago just do what you're doing now, ask what your basing you idea of God on? There is a God, just as a matter of deductive logic.And as I said, a smart-ass with a PhD. is still a smart-ass.
jtfugate (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The categories, I feel, are completely the same. I just think that when you believe one thing but not another the thing you believe seems substantially less irrational than the thing you do not. Saying pigs may one day fly is equally as possible as saying there is a supernatural being. Either one is highly improbable. As for Richard Dawkins he is extremely brilliant and well respected as a scientist; disagreeing with his approach should say nothing about his intellectual capacity, I feel.
hitoallandme (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Is he not mooseflier. And if so please tell us how. Thanks
mooseflier (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Ken Miller is brittiant."LOL! |
