Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: VadeRetro
Took the author two sentences to get something seriously wrong. An uninformed opinion.

When our social institutions evolved to the point where asking such a question wasn’t as quite as painful or harmful to one’s health, science, in the sense that we use today, began to blossom. And it bloomed because of its explanatory power, its predictive power. If you combine A, B, and C – bingo! – you get D. And no one had ever seen, heard or thought of D before!

But at least he wasn't a complete idiot.

64 posted on 08/26/2005 11:17:07 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]


To: balrog666
I see that troubling fallacy in the posts of some freepers as well. Acceptance of not only evolution but simple cause-and-effect relationships is equated to atheism.

Yes, the idea that you can model nature without angels pushing the stars around was a useful advance. No, I don't think we've gone too far with it.

71 posted on 08/26/2005 11:24:07 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson