I’m going to mumble in the corner by myself now… but before I do I must say, I can’t believe how many ecorazzi readers don’t understand science, or have convinced themselves that the evil biologists have something to hide or prove against religion!

Sorry.

The Theory of Evolution lends itself to criticism, to poking and prodding, to ensuring that it’s a “working” theory – testing itself every minute. That’s the beauty of science.

“Faith,” on the other hand, is not asking to be proven, because it can’t be. That’s the whole point of the word – to believe without proof. That’s not very academic.

Don’t tell me Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Faith; eg, things we could never find or test proof against.

Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It’s simply not academic. It’s the ol’ “observable evidence” prerequisite. Gets ya every time.

There is currently an ominous movement within science which goes beyond the censorship we see from Darwinists. Elements within the scientific community are increasingly attempting to position science as the only legitimate source of knowledge, in the minds of the general public. Any question which does not submit to the scientific method is deemed meaningless. Science can be the only legitimate arbiter. The ultimate questions such as “is there a God?” have been relegated to the “myths and legends” section where they are guarded heavily lest they should escape and once again rise to challenge the authority of science . Ridicule is used effectively to slap anyone back into line who presents an alternative world-view.

To some extent, this monopolising stems from an arrogance within science, arising from theoretical and technical “advances” and from speculation concerning even greater future possibilities. It is also due to the self serving and self propagating nature of science. People whose status depends on their scientific work are always inclined to exaggerate the importance and scope of science, as they exaggerate the importance and potential applications of their own research.

In order to achieve this level of power, scientists need to convince us that their knowledge rests on a firm and certain foundation. The limits of science or the unprovable metaphysical assumptions are hardly discussed. Either these limitations deliberately concealed or practising scientists are genuinely ignorant about foundational issues related to their discipline. Whatever the case, the false picture of science as the repository of certain truth has been bought by a large percentage of the general public. They must be getting their ideas from somewhere.

At the same time, it is admitted by the majority opinion that other options are possible and that not everything to be known about the issue is known at this time. At the same time they claim their idea is ‘fact’.

Big contradiction there.

Greater still, why the censorship? Is this really objectivity, or is the idea that one’s world view keeps one from allowing room for other opinions valid, particularly because of the obviouis implications?

Your analogy is interesting but misses the point. It is the Darwinists still pushing a Victorian dogma with religious zeal whom history will judge to be a laughing stock. Darwin had justification for asking for time to answer his critics, being well aware of the serious problems which could be justifiably raised against his own theory. He devoted an entire chapter to parering over the cracks. 150 years on, there are no excuses. Dinosaurs, sorry I mean Darwinists out there – you can no longer believe the earth is flat. Start getting used to a design centred paradigm.

I think my husband was right, we should all just evolve into Sporlocks. (It’s a WoW thing.)

Also, it really bothered me when I read an article on physicists trying to describe the size of nothing. I thought nothing was the absence of something. On top of that, I thought that something couldn’t come from noting.

Evolution never made sense to me, especially now that I am pre-med.