As long as I'm making addenda to posts, let's hit up this one, too.
Some people have mentioned that they knew the creationists would come gunning for other domains of science sooner or later, and see George Deutsch's remarks as confirmation. There is absolutely no surprise to the criticism of physics, and it's been going on for a long while. Ultimately, the gripe the religious have isn't with the simple facts, it's with the process. Science is a tool that has been incredibly successful at digging into the nature of the universe, and religion is a proven flop next to it. That rankles, I'm sure.
Look at Philip Johnson and the Wedge document, too: they aren't after just the idea that man evolved from apes. They're out to demolish the whole enchilada. Their enemy is naturalism. Every science is a target.
Remember this: anything that isn't learned by way of dogma and revelation is a direct challenge to the authority of religious leaders. Science, all of it, is a threat to the religious cash cow. And most daunting to the theocratic mindset, clawing your way to the top of the scientific heap doesn't translate to the same kind of immunity to effective criticism we see in Christianity. They just don't see how they can shift a scam that requires credulity to a paradigm that demands skepticism.
- Log in to post comments
The methods of science and the methods of religion are simply incompatible. One relies on doubt and constant re-examination, the other on faith and dogmatic transmission.
The apologists on both sides spend a great deal of effort trying to convince people to ignore that which they already know: you can't serve two masters with mutually exclusive demands.
Where were these nuts when I was takeing calculus. I had my versions, mathamaticians had theirs.
"Where were these nuts when I was takeing calculus."
I see you had your version of taking english, too.
So what are you saying, that mathematics are next on the religious list of things to abuse? You know, mathematics isn't exactly a science per se, and hasn't the closest connection to experiments. It is an exploration of formal and/or abstract systems which are based on simple properties observed to be obeyed by nature.
Insofar mathematic models are usable in science, mathematics is compliant with reality and a part of science. Faith isn't even usable in science.
You've done a brilliant job of painting religion with a broad brush and setting it up as the enemy of science. It's a beautiful straw man, and I'm sure it's lots of fun to tilt against it.
There are plenty of variations on religion, however, that don't think that the function of religion is to explain how the physical universe works. That's the function of science. Religion has other functions, like the promotion of compassion, social cohesion, personal development, and moral courage.
The fundamentalists are inimical, not just to science, but to everyone with a world view outside of their limited doctrine. The problem is not religion per se, but the reductionist mind set that casts certain principles in stone and ignores everything that doesn't fit into its simplistic model.
My training is in mathematics, and I am willing to accept that all models have limitations. I don't fret overmuch that quantum mechanics appears to be irreconcilable with relativity. Both models are useful, and true in certain areas, and there's no reason to toss out a perfectly good tool simply because it doesn't play well with another perfectly good tool.
Mathematics is a game where we play with things that have no physical existence. Numbers, like God, are an invention of the human mind. The idea of God has been remarkably resilient in the meme stream. It must be useful if humans have held onto it for so long.
Religion has a vast and varied history and is expressed diversely in the world today. You can toss it all on the rubbish heap if you like. I decided it was probably a good idea to go through its pockets first.
Physics has always been a logical target for Creationists / Creation Scientists / IDers to go after, but this is the first time I've heard of one of them acting out against physicist/cosmologists. Perhaps now there will be fewer smug comments about how biologists shouldn't take this silliness seriously, what does it really matter what gets taught in high school biology, etc., etc..
Not if it's a parasite that eats your brain.
Syphilus has been remarkably resilient in the human population. It must be useful if humans have held onto it for so long.
Religion is a self-perpetuating (meme) blackmail system.
Look at the blackmail being perpetrated right now!
The apologists on both sides spend a great deal of effort trying to convince people to ignore that which they already know: you can't serve two masters with mutually exclusive demands.
Well, speaking as someone who's had up to four (very) part-time jobs at a time, I can only say that as long as you don't try to serve them both at the same time you're probably OK.
I'd agree that the scientific and religious approaches to phenomena are antithetical. Where science says anything, it says to doubt. Where religion says anything, it says to have faith. Fortunately, there's a principle known as non-overlapping magisteria that points out that, as long as you don't have both trying to speak on the same topic, you're probably OK. Despite being an atheist, I still think this is a fair approach.
The question then becomes: what areas does each approach take as its own. My current ethic is that you can declare whatever the heck you like to be in the religious magisterium, as long as you don't get in the way of people who think it's in the scientific magisterium and want to analyse it appropriately. So feel free to believe that the Earth is flat, just don't get in the way of geologists who think otherwise.
Math is next?
...Too late.
I'll quoting you a funny post, not my own, that's worth a read.
Except for those who choose to be in denial,most people would agree that modern day Science is a BORE. There are no longer any interesting discoveries or inventions,all that is being done is a modification of ancient scientist' work. How come this generation is not as intelligent as the past ones?Why do we have people calling themselves scientists when all they do is sit on their brains?Present day scientists are only hiding behind the spirits of all those TRUE scientists who have passed on. Take any scientific document and all you will see is repetition of the same old concepts that we have gotten used to (but with a twist). People,wake up!!
Heh. I could see a scenario where this could be the case. In limits. 1/X where X approaches zero. I know of at least one street preacher near me that would likely claim that there is only one infinite being! He is very adamant that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, so therefore there is no big bang. It would not be a stretch for him to deny mathematical infinity.
Caledonian:
"Syphilus has been remarkably resilient in the human population. It must be useful if humans have held onto it for so long."
Humans have held on to syphilus? Purposely? We have made an actual decision that we would keep this disease?
VKW:
"Physics has always been a logical target for Creationists / Creation Scientists / IDers to go after, but this is the first time I've heard of one of them acting out against physicist/cosmologists."
I've actually heard this attack multiple times, both from Kent Hovind, and from students in my classes. It's not news to me, but I suspect it isn't as big a target as human evolution because it doesn't deal with the issue of human origins.
Anonymous:
"Insofar mathematic models are usable in science, mathematics is compliant with reality and a part of science. Faith isn't even usable in science."
This is exactly right--faith isn't usable in science. If everyone could admit that, this whole problem would go away, and SJ Gould's NOMA would rule supreme, as it should. Right on, Corkscrew!
And Heather Madrone:
To add to your statement...it's easier to blame religion for all the strife in the world than it is to take a good hard look at human nature. The Communist nations embraced atheism, and I think everyone would agree that that was a disaster. So, using the same logic against religion: atheism is to blame for human suffering.
But I'm oversimplifying the issue.
The problem in both cases is when religion OR atheism is coupled with the human need and thirst for wealth, power, and influence. The world view matters little, it's this thirst that propels people, and we all have it to some degree or another. This is what drives fundamentalists of all stripes. But it's the world view that gets the blame, not the human nature behind it.
It's hard to let go of the belief that humans are basically good. I posit that humans are basically idiots, and if we weren't motivated to fight over religion, we would be motivated to fight over something equally ridiculous. We've really perfected the art of hate and fear, and we hate and fear that which is different from us and that which we don't understand, whether it is a different religious group, a different race, a different sexual preference, or a different world view. Blaming religion for ALL the woes of the world is a gross oversimplification of a much deeper problem.
Wow, Anonymous. What the...? Look around you, dude!
"Except for those who choose to be in denial,most people would agree that modern day Science is a BORE. There are no longer any interesting discoveries or inventions, all that is being done is a modification of ancient scientist' work. How come this generation is not as intelligent as the past ones?Why do we have people calling themselves scientists when all they do is sit on their brains?Present day scientists are only hiding behind the spirits of all those TRUE scientists who have passed on. Take any scientific document and all you will see is repetition of the same old concepts that we have gotten used to (but with a twist). People,wake up!!"
NO interesting discoveries or inventions (s/he says typing on his/her COMPUTER with his/her I-POD in his/her ears and text messaging his/her friend on his/her CELL PHONE). S/he may one day find his/her future diseases attacked by nano-technology and customized genes, or have his/her burns treated with artificial skin...or have his/her life saved because we are getting better and better at predicting natural disasters like tornadoes and volcanic eruptions. But, it's true, we have made NO interesting discoveries or inventions...Next time I'm lost in the woods or on the road with my GPS, I'll lament the fact that NO new discoveries or inventions have been made by modern day science...
Cheers!
"Take any scientific document and all you will see is repetition of the same old concepts that we have gotten used to (but with a twist). People,wake up!!"
Either this anonymous person has the world's greatest talent at sarcasm, or he has never read a scientific document. :)
Assuming the sarcasm hypothesis for the moment, he is, of course, describing the millenia old ID/IE, as well as countless other newage (rhymes with "sewage") beliefs.
Science, on the other hand, has been finding out a lot of new stuff. Not too long ago, I found out something weird and exciting: Not only is the universe expanding, that expansion is accelerating (contrary to what I think scientists originally speculated), and not only is the expansion accelerating: The acceleration seems to accelerating. At least, that's what it looks like until we gather more gamma ray bursts to confirm. The original data might have just been a fluke, though. We'll find out with a bit more time.
Physics has always been a logical target for Creationists / Creation Scientists / IDers to go after, but this is the first time I've heard of one of them acting out against physicist/cosmologists.
John Moore's How to Teach Origins (Without ACLU Interference), a YEC teaching guide from 1983, has a chapter on how to apply the "equal time" approach to cosmology. My favorite bit is where he cites the "orderly patterns of constellations" as evidence for creation.
"Fortunately, there's a principle known as non-overlapping magisteria that points out that, as long as you don't have both trying to speak on the same topic, you're probably OK."
Unfortunately, both make statements about reality. Their magisteria overlap constantly.
Except for those who choose to be in denial,most people would agree that modern day Science is a BORE. There are no longer any interesting discoveries or inventions,all that is being done is a modification of ancient scientist' work.
Lets see... Flores Man, the new "planet(s)" around our sun, the new planets around OTHER suns, mars rovers, photos from titan, all sorts of new fossil discoveries... all in the last two years or so alone - yeah, boring stuff all of that.
It's well known that Phillip Johnson & the Wedgies are after science and methodological naturalism. Now, the media and the public are beginning to find this out, and some are referring to the Wedge Document and quoting phrases from it such as "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies in favor of a broadly theistic understanding of nature." This phrase is being more widely circulated, and can only be trouble for the Discovery Institute and those who would like to bring Intelligent Design Creationism into the classroom claiming that it has nothing to do with religion.
My favorite bit is where he cites the "orderly patterns of constellations" as evidence for creation.
I've always loved this trait people have of seeing things where there is nothing. Used to argue with this guy on the MSNBC space message boards who would take lunar photos, apply the sharpen filter in Photoshop repeatedly to "enhance" them, and then point to all the resulting jagged pixelization as evidence of "alien technology and structures" on the moon.
The other day I was thinking about seeing things in bathroom tiles while taking a bath, and in one of my tiles alone (they're rather large) I counted over 20 human faces, 2 pandas, a wolf, a vase with flowers, several birds, a penguin, assorted other animals, and get this - the spitting image of Jesus Christ on the cross. Very detailed, woodgrain, hair, grass on the hilltop, etc. I thought of taking a picture to have ready as ammo.
All of the tiles in my bathroom are identical. I really don't like the color - maybe I can pull them off one by one and sell them on eBay to fund a renovation.
Well it's not so much physics being attacked by Deutsch, as cosmology. Of course I'm not denying that the two are connected, and that attacks on cosmology are typically also attacks on physics to some extent, but the attacks are less directly against physics per se than was suggested. One may, if one wish, doubt the Big Bang, after all, and publish an article to that effect in Physics Today (as did Hoyle and one or more authors within the last decade, IIRC). The physics used to understand the Big Bang can be used for several models, it's just that the Big Bang is difficult to deny by now (probably true even if branes did it).
Perhaps it is not so bad if one includes "theory" after "Big Bang" (we often do it with evolution), however it is highly questionable for an apparachik of the Republican Party to be demanding it. Of course the dolt doesn't know science, that at least in theory and frequently in practice the "reigning models" are not considered to be sacrosanct or beyond the possibility of toppling.
It's sort of amusing, however, for Deutsch to be complaining about the Big Bang when Gerald Schroeder, as well as some we encounter on forums such as this one(Heddle, Carol Clouser (sp?)--more on PT, however) like to take the Big Bang as some kind of evidence for the Designer. The "necessary conditions for life" supposedly have to be fine-tuned into the universe (odd, then, how dangerous conditions are for life on earth is, from superheating at the end of the Permian, to cataclysmic impact at the end of the Cretaceous. These are two examples out of many), plus the problem of low entropy is just dying for the Goddidit explanation, don't you know. Cause, like, God can do anything, so as Sherlock said, if you eliminate the impossible, then you're left with the impossible (well no, actually he said eliminate the impossible (gods, demons, and ghosts, for instance) and you're in some cases left with the improbable--that which can be recognized as having been "physically" caused).
I do at least appreciate Deutsch's recognition that a colossal expansion of lifeless matter, dimension, and energy is not directly visible as God's handiwork, unlike what the DI and others would claim.
And btw, the physicists have generally been on our side, both because they do physics instead of magic and because they do know that the attempts at forcing nonsense into biology really entails attacks on physics. That Johnson simply says as much (via his stupid belief in "materialism" and "naturalism" as real bases for science) happens to be useful to us for arguing against those who can't make this connection: magic=anti-physics.
Physics Today has had several good articles opposing creationism/ID. I liked when they included two opinions about ID in their magazine. Unlike the usual false equality seen in the popular press, both were completely opposed to ID. There's really not much point in thinking deeply about claptrap that doesn't even begin to apply scientific standards, rather it is better to simply apply the standards physicists use to critique ID, in order to demonstrate how woefully inadequate ID is.
In any case it should be recognized that any attack on properly done science is automatically an attack on physics. ID specifically attacks the laws of thermodynamics by positing causation from outside of the universe (no alien can be understood to make organisms as we find these on earth, beside the fact that God is the real Designer in their minds), as well as calling into question the plausible inference we have made that causation has been nearly the same throughout all time (near the Big Bang we need some adjustments). Phillip Johnson simply recognized this on some level and attacked epistemologically sound science in order to make room for his religion.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
PZ, I think this is a little broad. This is absolutely true of Fundies. And maybe it applies to many religious leaders. But I think a vast percentage of religious people, past and present, actually see science as a perfectly acceptable process revealing the magnificence of the universe. Some of the earliest scientists were priests and monks.
Intelligent Design is schizophrenic. Some of it's supporters believe it proves their fundamental religious belief, if only by questioning real science. Other supporters desperately want ID to walk the science walk and reject its creationist agenda. So ID is not only bad science, it's anti-religion. This is something that needs to be more potently demonstrated to the faithful. ID bastardizes and insults "faith", by claiming to be able to catch God hiding in the dark corners of our knowledge.
Actual science, however, by not deigning to comment on the supernatural, is no threat to the mysteries of religious faith.
Unfortunately, both make statements about reality. Their magisteria overlap constantly.
In your model, they do, but you haven't yet proven why your model is a better one than the model of complementary sets.
If science is to be any more than just the scientific method, then there has to be a set of values, ethics, and principles one level more meta than the scientific method that go along with it. Most scientists recognize principles like transparency, openness, informed consent, and the like, and because of the few that don't (like Pernkopf and the Nazi anatomists, or Bezwoda and his falsified results), now all scientists have to present their work for institutions like review boards. But even without the review boards, there is a set of ethics about how science should be carried out that most scientists subscribe to, and that is also more than just the scientific method.
The hyper-rationalist error is to assume that logic is sufficient to account for these meta-scientific principles (Pernkopf is the easy counter-example, but there are others), and the hyper-religionist error is to assume that religion is necessary to account for them (creationist lying as a counter-example).
Complementary sets looks like a good model, not only for the idea of NOMA, but for the reality of practicing scientists. Your model, on the other hand, would predict both that the scientific method and logic are sufficient, and that a religious person cannot carry out science, and it is easy to find counterexamples to those prediction.
Pernkopf and his ilk demonstrate that adherence to the scientific method alone is insufficient (and technically-speaking only, the quality of their techniques were quite good; the reproach does not lie on that level), and the scientists who are religious and carry out good science demonstrate that religion does not necessarily oppose science. And as PZ and many other scientists demonstrate daily, you don't have to be religious to be an ethical scientist--it can certainly be derived from elsewhere than religion.
"If science is to be any more than just the scientific method"
Why should it be?
And as for "not having shown why it's a better model", that's a joke. Science doesn't conflict with folksongs, but that's because no one suggests that folksongs express anything about the nature of the world. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of religious beliefs would consider a comparison of their faith to arbitrary cultural traditions to be a grave insult.
The only way science and religion can have "non-overlapping magisteria" is for religion to avoid making any statements about objective reality - in other words, nothing that is religious could be said to be true.
"If science is to be any more than just the scientific method" Why should it be?
Ok, if you think ethics has no place in science. Most scientists think principles like transparency and informed consent do belong there, however.
The only way science and religion can have "non-overlapping magisteria" is for religion to avoid making any statements about objective reality - in other words, nothing that is religious could be said to be true.
You miss the case where science has anything to say about scientific ethics, which are not objective reality, either.
I tend to ignore religious issues most of the time, because religion is in fact all over the board on freedom of thought vs. dogma, acceptance of science, and what is to be expected from the use of the human mind. Also because of the following, which I have said previously on this forum and on PT and TO, but which (unfairly, but indubitably) gains force through the authority of Charles Darwin:
''It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.''
This was quoted by Michael Shermer in a letter to the NYT, which may be found at the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/books/review/05mail.html
This isn't what the defenders of religion are saying in their posts, however it does support their preference for religion as such to be left alone when science is being defended and/or promoted. I don't especially care either way about what happens to religion, just so long as it allows science to flourish (granted, I think that the decline of religion would tend to promote scientific thinking--yet it would hardly guarantee such a result).
In any case, the thrust of the post by Myers was not so much to attack religion at large as it was to example the fact that religious attacks on science spill over from biology into physics--really an inevitability, given their pseudoscientific disregard for proper use of evidence and of scientific principles. This primary point may have had more effect had his post simply struck against the immediate threats against science, the DI, ID, and other religiously motivated attacks upon science. Phillip Johnson, along with any who agree with his appalling manifesto, are certainly the main enemies of science who also have political power, and it might be best to keep this fact front and center.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Don't say that where Fiona Ritchie or the Old Blind Dogs can hear you!
ASTRONAUT KILLED IN EFFIGY - NASA SCIENTISTS TAKE HINT
An empty space suit with a radio transmitter was released from the International Space Station today. The suit is programmed to transmit greetings in six languages, send tempreture and battery power readings, and to scream in pain when the suit starts to burn up in the atmosphere
The White House apointed director of public relations for NASA said today that, "This suit might be empty, but NASA scientists better realize that the next one we send to sleep with the fishes might not be unless they stop coming up with lies about the existance of global warming." Under futher questioning the White House apointee denied that he was making threats and said that NASA employees were perfectly safe provided that they, "Make sure they keep their filthy spaceship away from God and use the word theory when referring to the earth being round."
The last part is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Ever think about a career working for The Onion?
A couple of observations:
1) So all science or technology should now be bound by "Full Metal Jacket" ~ If God would have wanted you up there he would have miracled your ass up there, wouldn't he?
That is going to be my approach in bridge design. If God wants my bridge to stand, it will!
2) When I was in college & would go to the library (usually the technical library being an engineer), I would see the great multitude of books. All that knowlegde and thought. The long search for understanding of how the world works. And I juxtaposed that with people who took the rational of the Bible being the only book that you need literally.
Ugghh. Hopefully this too shall pass... but it sucks living through it.
Even religious beliefs that are in the ethical domain (broadly construed) can and do conflict with science implicitly. This occurs because ethical views involve metaphysical postulates (e.g. about the nature of mind or society) that are in conflict with the metaphysics presupposed by scientific research. The latter changes as science itself grows; the former changes dogmatically or haphazardly, so even methodologically there is a conflict.
I am so glad to read this entry and subsequent comments.
Ever since I read Numbers' THE CREATIONISTS in grad school, I've been struck by the notion that this madness doesn't end with evolutionary biology - it just starts there. Because the natural sciences are tied together, once the tidal pull of lunacy starts lapping at the shores of sanity, there appears to be no limit. Microbiology, geology, chemistry, physics, cosmology - it all starts to unravel once the General Hypothetical Organizing Device starts to masquerade as scientific explanation.
So, it seems that the science/technology that religionists hate most would be the printing press. Gutenberg set in motion a world where sharing of information beyond the church's control was able to accelerate and propogate. Public education is one of their primary battlegrounds because it too counteracts their efforts to be the only authority. Religionists have spent hundred of years trying to put the genie back in the bottle with only sporadic successes. In the end they will lose the war, even if they win a few battles.
Here we are sharing ideas almost instantaneously with nary a controlling authority in sight (except maybe the NSA).
Glen D: Well it's not so much physics being attacked by Deutsch, as cosmology. Of course I'm not denying that the two are connected, and that attacks on cosmology are typically also attacks on physics to some extent, but the attacks are less directly against physics per se than was suggested.
If you scratch the surface just a bit, I think it's closer to a direct attack on basic physics than you're acknowledging here. (Not that we have a real disagreement... I just want to pound this a bit.)
What's really going on is a politico pressuring scientists to hedge on anything that might contradict the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Like the speed of light, and the most basic facts of astronomy. It's just a fact that the speed of light is really really fast and that there is something suspiciously like a universe that is mostly more than a few thousand light years away. We can see stuff that's millions and billions of light-years away.
Only a miniscule fraction of the observable universe would be observable if the universe were only a few thousand years old. The light wouldn't have gotten here yet.
Sure, like any scientific knowledge, this is based on "theories." But then, it's just a theory that I'm actually typing on a computer in a real world, or that I exist at all, or I can see the sun or moon with my unaided eyes. I could be hallucinating... or being duped.
There is nothing we know more certainty than that light is extremely fast stuff, or that there is way, way, too much universe out there for it all to be within a 6000 light-year radius.
Screw the sparse fossil record and the complicated theories of geology and evolution---we can see that the Universe can't all be within 6000 light-years of us.
This is the question the young-Earthers do not want to answer: where the hell did all the light come from that appears to come from millions or billions of light-years away, and appears to show us a universe with galaxies and so on?
Incredibly enough, a few Young-Earthers will answer this question, with the following interestingly opposed answers:
1. God did it; he created all that light, in flight, six thousand years ago, to show us the stuff that actually is out there. It's a miracle. It does show stuff that's really there, because God wouldn't lie to us with star-images. God wanted us to see it, so he created the light, in flight, in just such a way that it looks like it's been traveling for millions or billions of years. (Until you realize it's just another miracle. See! Miracles do happen!)
2. Satan did it: he created all that light, in flight, much like God did in answer #1. Only Satan did it to fuck with our minds and make us falsely think that the universe is billions of years old.
3. Satan did it, as in #2, except that the stuff isn't actually out there; it's an illusion created by that bad ol' Satan, to lead us astray.
I kid you not. If you can find a Young Earth Creationist who will answer the question at all, you will likely get one of those answers. Any other answers are worse---involving things like just the right radical change in the speed of light, apparently distant galaxies being quite small, etc.---epicycles on epicycles, without any coherence, much less plausibility.
The Truth of Scripture doesn't just trump Darwin or Einstein---it trumps basic, dead-obvious physics, if and when necessary. Scientists shouldn't even use the most basic rational reasoning to explain the most obviously observable things, if it contradicts scripture.
And that is the underlying message. There are no non-overlapping magisteria; science must bow to scripture, always. If creationists don't agree whether the universe is thousands or billions of years old, scientists should avoid using the most basic reasoning from the best-known facts if it might contradict what some of creationists believe.
In other words, we're back to what they told Galileo: you shouldn't assert what that newfangled telescope thingie plainly shows you, when it says right here that ain't true.
Scientists are not generally put under house arrest for refusing to play along, but they are pressured to treat such arguments as though they had considerable weight---no amount of scientific evidence, however basic, can contradict anything in scripture, without saying "but of course it's just a theory" and implicitly that "maybe scripture is a better guide than what I plainly see through my telescope."
The bottom line: scientists don't really know anything, but maybe religious people do. Science is just opinion; and must always say so if anybody might construe it as contradicting The Gospel Truth.
And that is exactly the message of many millions of inerrantist fundies: the Gospel is the only reliable Truth; anything that contradicts the Gospel is a trick of the devil, or just "a trick of the light" we haven't figured out yet. It is more likely that the Devil or even God himself is playing a trick on you than that the Bible is wrong. Scientists must always respect that view, and never contradict it, no matter what their "personal religious opinions" about it.
That is what the Theory/Fact distinction is about. Scientists can only claim to have theories, so that fundies can claim to have facts, without fear of contradiction.
Barfogenic, no?
Barfogenic, no?
Nailed it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Where religion says anything, it says to have faith.
That depends on the religion. Mine encourages doubt.