brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Tue Oct 8 03:49:17 EST 2002


JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>Matthew Amsel <matthew.amsel at mail.mcgill.ca> wrote: 
>What I can't accept is the notion that men just began wondering
>about the origins and development of life here on the planet, in the
>last couple of hundred years.

They didn't.  But until the modern era, there was a shortage of
information that would give much of a clue, and enough educated people
to gain those clues (ever heard of the printing press and the
Renaissance?), and sufficient questioning of religious orthodoxy to
allow the clues to be shared (ever heard of the Inquisition?)

It wasn't until the 1600s, when bacteria and cells were first
observed, and we first had a clue that there WERE simple life forms
from which life could have evolved.  It wasn't until the 1700s that
the mysticism of alchemy started to become chemistry and the idea of
nature as a bunch of interacting processes became evident.  Also in
the 1700s, Linnaeus devised the modern idea of taxonomy, which imposed
enough order on the multitudes of lifeforms that the patterns could be
recognized.

Science builds on the shoulders of those who came before.
Evolutionary theory was not possible until all the building blocks had
been identified.

>This seems to be the postion of a few
>folks here, and they probably would still be believing Al invented
>the internet if it weren't for all those conservatives out there who
>knew the history of the whole thing.  

The difference here seems to be that scientists know the history of
science, and you don't.

>That which cannot be proven is a matter of faith.

That for which there is no evidence is a matter of faith.  

If there is evidence, then the processes of science can be applied to
test theories.  Science does not prove anything, nor does it rely on
faith.

>We Christians know God created
>everything and therefore, do not have to wait for biochemists to
>invent another theory.

We Christians who are scientists are not merely satisfied with
"Goddidit".  We want to know HOW he did it, and to contemplate the
wonder of his creation, which is far more wondrous if you actually
understand how it interacts.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list