Posted by General Patton at xlate-6-94.webster.edu on February 09, 2000 at 16:06:18:
In Reply to: Not exactly true (and a little pompous)... posted by Wolveroach on February 09, 2000 at 11:27:22:
I'll admit there are plenty of scientists who act as if science itself is a dogmatic practice, which its not. Science is strictly based on rationality. That is, any true experiment can be reproduced. Others can repeat it. Laws can be tested. Theories can be refuted. It is an ever-changing process because flex is built into its structure....It -accepts- change. Religion works just the opposite. It teaches us to deny change rather than integrate it as a part of our lives. When Copernicus said the Earth was not the center of the universe, Catholicism said "No! It is! Take it back!" And they confiscated his telescopes, ultimately forcing him to deny his own findings so that he could exist.
Evolution DOES take place on a daily basis. If it doesn't then what is your explanation for how an antibiotic works? Whether there is randomness to it or not, makes no difference.
Rigid beliefs are never a good thing. Life is about change and adaptation. Its the nature of the beast. Reality doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it keeps going.
: I hate scientists (and I'm not saying you're one, just ranting) who act like whatever they believe at a given point in history is "scientific fact." The truth is that current scientific belief will be looked at as naive and backwards in a few hundred years. History teaches us this. For centuries Newtonian physics was "scientific fact." I realize that Darwinian evolution has quite a bit of evidence to support it, but there are competing scientific ideas. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a book on one that claims that evolution isn't random, as Darwin claimed. Recent scientific experiments support this idea. Anyway, alls I'm saying is to realize that dogmatic science is just as narrow-minded as dogmatic religion (hey, this ended up kind of on-topic!)