Re: Snoke's paper

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 15:10:55 EDT

janice matchett wrote:

> At 09:44 PM 8/11/2005, Randy Isaac wrote:
>
>> .....*But getting things right at the basic level, instead of forcing
>> a particular theory, will always be fruitful in the long run.*
>>
>> Best regards,
>> David Snoke
>
>
> ### That's the bottom line, by the way --- as even Einstein, himself,
> found out the hard way. *:)
>
> *But many, like Dawkins, et.al., still want to call their
> *man-centered religion*, "science" - when in reality it is Scientism.
>
> *Scientism: "Only that which can be proved by science is true."
> *

I doubt that 'many' adhere to what you describe as scientism. Scientism
is as wrong as religious claims if it states that science can
prove/disprove the existence of a supernatural entity.
The problem is, as I see it, that ID proponents are inserting the
supernatural into science without addressing the relevant questions. For
instance, by stating the design can be detected, ID proponents have
taken the leap of faith that, what Elsberry et al refer to as, rarefied
design can also be detected.
ID as it exist right now is scientifically vacuous. At most it can be
argued that ID may guide research for better or worse.
The lack of a theoretical foundation for ID seems self evident and in
many cases is not even denied (anymore) by ID proponents.

Once the concept of science is understood, science nor religion should
have anything to fear from eachother.

Could I ask you to support your claims with some references for what
Dawkins and Sagan have said?

For instance Sagan is quoted

[quote]
"Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul
hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is
certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence
against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence.
Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate
causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than
we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the
existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me
to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and
uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed. A wide range of
intermediate positions seems admissible, and considering the enormous
emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questioning,
courageous and open mind seems to be the essential tool for narrowing
the range of our collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of
God."[/quote]

-"The Amniotic Universe," Broca's Brain, p. 311.
Received on Sat Aug 13 15:11:44 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 15:11:45 EDT