"Whereas, the proud claim that a supernatural entity beyond the capacity of science to observe, is the best scientific explanation of the universe is just oozing with scientific respectability."
So you, donh (a frustrated junior highschool science teacher, I'm guessing? Or just an unpublished Junior College professor?) don't think Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle et al are "scientifically respectable?" Mein Gott! What are you so afraid of that you would say such a thing so obviously at odds with the "gods" of your profession?
None of the above. Just an ordinary working stiff, who is, nonetheless, above trying to insinuate ad homonem arguments based on thin air.
don't think Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle et al are "scientifically respectable?" Mein Gott! What are you so afraid of that you would say such a thing so obviously at odds with the "gods" of your profession?
The "God's of my profession" also fart, sleep late on weekends, and tip back a brew from time to time. Does that make any of these things science?
I am getting the impression that you have no real idea of what science consists. Have you ever cracked the cover of "Science" or "Nature"? Have you ever seen a refereed article in a scientific journal? Science is conducted in a very concrete and obsessively detailed manner, and, insofar as to what it believes with confidence, it is about experiments almost to the exclusion of anything else. A thing does not become a science just because an famous scientist has an opinion about it. Honest.
So you, donh (a frustrated junior highschool science teacher, I'm guessing? Or just an unpublished Junior College professor?)
Grow up.
don't think Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle et al are "scientifically respectable?" Mein Gott!
Neither Einstein nor Hawking has ever made the mistake of claiming such a thing. I suspect you're grossly misreading donh's actual statement.
As for Hoyle, he hasn't made that claim either, but he hardly deserves to be mentioned with Einstein and Hawking. He was a fine astronomer, but he was rather a complete crank on other subjects. He believed that insects may be as intelligent as humans, for example, and that life on Earth was seeded by aliens. He also devised a grossly inappropriate and inaccurate "analogy" for evolution which revealed a complete ignorance of the subject -- that's probably why the creationists like it so much.
What are you so afraid of that you would say such a thing so obviously at odds with the "gods" of your profession?
You're very confused if you think that accomplished scientists are "gods" to other scientists.