Replies

Are you suggesting that assertions about purpose are the product of scientific evidence?

To say that science doesn't reveal a purpose is not the same thing as saying there is no purpose. To say that IF there is no purpose to the universe, we still have a purpose, is not a scientific statement but Weinberg's opinion, and I stronly agree with it.

One that denies that the God that most Americans are familiar with exists.

Insofar as "the God most [insert culture here] are familiar with" behaves in a manner contradicted by the discoveries of science, he, she or it must be denied. Again, science is under no requirement not to contradict the specific beliefs of specific religions.

You've pretty much hit on the problem I have when defending a science curriculum in a religious school setting. The unfortunate propensity of scientists to float back and forth between, philosophical, theological and scientific positions.

It is fair to argue that there is no "supernatural intervention" that affects our place in the universe. It is not fair to argue this in science class. Science can't know whether there has been or is supernatural intervention. I'm not arguing about the measurable nature of the physical universe and unless you or Weinberg can find a way to measure purpose you can quit pretending that science has something to say about it.

I would submit that "science" has contributed to the effectiveness of "the Wedge" by participating in politics in the active support of environmentalism. Many "scientists" have taken grant money from organizations with an agenda to impose power over others by using the emotional subject of the environment.

The people behind the "Wedge" are merely copying the success of "science" derived environmentalism. Rather than objectively applying real science and engineering, they use the same tactics of appealing to the general publics non-understanding of the field by using public relations as a tool.

If the 300 year old enlightenment is to survive, then science must clean it's own house. It must attack members of the scientific community that prostitute themselves to environmentally based political movements by lending them credibility.

Science must defend itself by cleaning house, so that Creationists cannot allege that "Darwinism" is merely another religion, because it has been caught red handed violating it's own professed goal of finding genuine "truth".

Science must regain it's respectability by distancing itself from political movements like environmentalism.