[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[Chris Gehlker]

On Dec 4, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Mark Smith wrote:

>
> On 04.12.2007, at 03:18, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Stefano Mori wrote:
>>
>>> But as for the scientists, it is a worry--their arguments are  
>>> turning
>>> into scientism--if they simply _believe_ that Darwin explains all of
>>> evolution, rather than demonstrating arguments for why it does.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Exactly not. This is also a creationist postulation. Scientists do not
> blindly accept *ANYTHING* anyone who does, even if they are blindly
> accepting a piece of generally accepted science IS NOT A SCIENTIST.

I think that was the point of the original post. A lot of what gets  
called science is really just scientism. Some things are true even if  
a creationist says them.
>
>
>
>> Wikipedia says:
>> 'The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent
>> design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin  
>> of
>> life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do
>> not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their
>> own.'
>>
>> The problem I have with that is that it leaves out astronomy, huge
>> swaths of biology, lots of the human sciences and a lot of physics
>> since string theory came along.
>
> It doesn't. String theory is admittedly beyond the edge of what we can
> test, but as long as we continue to recognize that it is an
> unsubstantiated hypothesis, the rules are not broken.

So creationism isn't breaking the rules as long as it's taught as an  
'unsubstantiated hypothesis', that we will presumably be able to  
verify  at the rapture?
>
>
> Cataloging information is also a part of science. The quote from
> Wikipedia does not tell you everything that science is
Again, that was my point. In trying to exclude creationism the academy  
has thrown out the baby with the bath water and thrown out much that  
clearly *is* science.

> , it tells you
> what makes it different from creationism and other political
> approaches to philosophical issues.

But it doesn't do it well. I think this is because science is partly  
an attitude and partly an epistemology. Science is also about  
simplicity, elegance, and being as mathematical as you can. I do get  
why string theory is not creationism, I'm just not sure the academy  
does.

--
Conscience is thoroughly well-bred and soon leaves off talking to  
those who do not wish to hear it.
-Samuel Butler, writer (1835-1902)