Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:04:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1470 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
> Because religious research shouldn't be confused with scientific research and
> it shouldn't pretend to be. One is legitimate science that can produce
> beneficial results (in medicine, engineering, technology etc) - which
> represents a gain to our society. The other is the application of bad
> science, which hinders the production of these beneficial results - and
> represents a loss to our society.
>
> Again no one is preventing creationists from conducting all the research they
> want on their own. So far all the theories they have presented are scientific
> rubbish - and that doesn't help ones reputation in being able to accomplish
> something useful. Why would the government want to waste money funding these
> jokers? Would you hire someone to build you a house, if they demonstrated the
> lack of proper knowledge to do it? What would be the benefit to society when
> their shoddy construction subsequently collapsed?
Well, that's not the point-- the point isn't that to date, religious science has
been a joke, it's that "what if it weren't"? Should the fact that it just
happens to be religious preclude a research project from going forward, even if
it's conducted scientifically, or could yield beneficial results?
I'm not saying that it's likely to happen, or even that it COULD happen. I'm
asking on what grounds should funds be denied? Personally, I think it's based on
potential merit of the project (IE will it be useful if it succeeds?), and on
whether it looks like it'll be successful or not (IE do the methods involved
sound legitimate?).
Basically, I don't think it's that Creationism is necessarily an invalid theory,
but from what I've seen, its proponents simply have been unable to produce
anything even vaugely useful or progressive. It's not their theory that's the
problem, and it's not the fact that it's religious in nature that's the problem,
but it's the *approach* and the *lack of data* that's the problem.
In the end, I don't want to go around bashing a theory *because* it's religious.
I'll bash a theory because it lacks evidence or because it doesn't logically
follow the existing evidence. *IF* there were a theory that was religious *AND*
it were supported by evidence, I'd like to think that we'd support its funding
just as equally as we would some otherwise "scientific" funding.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Of course not. And you are correct that such projects are generally judged on merit. Personally I like the ones involving Near Death Experiences - although it should be noted in this case that this doesn't necessarily imply it's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Because religious research shouldn't be confused with scientific research and it shouldn't pretend to be. One is legitimate science that can produce beneficial results (in medicine, engineering, technology etc) - which represents a gain to our (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
