Sci., relig. discussion

James LYONSW at UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU
Fri Jun 10 07:09:27 EST 1994


marten at xs4all.hacktic.nl (marten) writes:


>Religion and reality are different things, they exist paralell, but can
>never make contact. Every discussion is for that specific reason
endless.
>So somebody came up with the terrific idea to separate scientific and
>religious newsgroups, let's keep it that way.


Religion and reality (I presume you mean scientific reality) do differ.
But both are based on accounts, observations, etc.  The difference
between
science and religion if that the congregation takes observations without
inductive skepticism, whereas observations in science MUST be
reproducible.

>No sense of reality will ever influence religio and, whatever religion
you
>examine, you'll find that it never *did* make the earth flatter than it
_is_
>(in reality).

>(cut) those answers should not be tought
>in science classes and be discussed in science.newsgroups. It's that
easy

>Every time I read these kind of threads I'm glad I don't have to roam
in
>backwarded America. The country that was in the back of his mind when
>FZ said:
>--
>  "Scientists believe that the universe is made of hydrogen,  because
>they claim it's the most plentiful ingredient.  I claim that the most
>plentiful ingredient is stupidity."
>  "America drinks and goes home"          --- Frank Zappa (1940-1993)

>This thread nor any flame on me should be posted in scientific.
>newsgrouwps. Would everybody be so kind to restrict this thread to
>alt.religiuos alt.mambo-jambo etc.? If you wish to flame, do it at
home.

>Yours sincerely,

>Marten Hoekstra, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

>(Studied en completed Biochemistry, now studying Philosophy)

How can you flame an entire country in a scientific newsgroup?  How can
you say that these (issues) should not be discussed in
science.newsgroups?

The former is incindiary and nationalistic (hardly objective); the
second
perhaps illustrates one of the fundamental examples of
how "America"(I presume you mean the United States, not S. America?)
hopes
to resolve societal controversies: by discussion (our 1st
amendment) Sticking our heads in the sand as you suggest will 1. prevent
those ignorant of the harm that religion can do to an individual's life
from learning about the power of scientific objectivity and inductive
skepticism, 2. allow the "spiritual" theft of power to continue
unabated,
wasting resources.

I personal welcome any opportunity I can find to remind creationists
that their "science" is comprised of a set of untestable hypotheses,
lacks empirical evidence, and offers nothing of value towards furthering
our understanding of how the natural world was formed or how it works.

Sorry, but I can't resist:  I hope that NSF does not hear that you have
"completed Biochemistry"; your former colleagues will be shocked to
that there is now nothing left to be discovered in of the chemistry of life.
Perhaps when you "complete" Philosophy you'll post the answer to the
basic question which this discussion started on.

Best wishes to the objective people of the world,

James



More information about the Bioforum mailing list