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."