To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26261
26260  |  26262
Subject: 
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:04:38 GMT
Viewed: 
1427 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR