Re: History of Science (was Map dowsing)


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Previous # Next ] [ Start New Thread ] [ TarBoard ]

Posted by Lyn on March 03, 2006 at 03:36:05 from 207.200.116.66 user LynMellone.

In Reply to: Re: History of Science (was Map dowsing) posted by Peter Ceresole on March 02, 2006 at 22:24:50:

Agreed that there is much of pure science that does not require a belief system to prop it up: we humans can pretty well assume that there are certain patterns that recur predictably. We can formulate laws of gravity and thermodynamics. We can be confident that an apple falls off a tree to the ground, not into the sky. With those phenomena that are observable and repeatable, we are on fairly solid ground (not me, I live in earthquake-prone California, USA).

But what about phenomena we cannot actually observe?

You refer to the Intelligent Design concept as if it were a thinly disguised attempt by the forces of Religion to argue with scientifically proven fact. Yet what if it is rather a valid attempt by true scientists to wrest the concept of evolution from its entrenched and outmoded ruts?

All I suggest is that we do choose for intellectual honesty; that we prefer true accuracy over the current "party line" whether that line have its source in "religion" or in "science."


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
Eel-Mail:

Existing subject (please edit appropriately) :

or is it time to start a New Thread?

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

post direct to TarBoard test post first

Before posting it is necessary to be a registered user.


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TarBoard ]

Courtesy of Environmental Science, Lancaster

space