I know. I didn't say it was scientific, really. I understand if I gave that impression. But the poster I was responding to could leave the general impression that no scientists in any field considered a Higer Power relevant. Actually, the quotes and concepts about a Higer Power's role in all of this are quite abundant through the years. I can't recall the exact quote, but Einstein said something along the lines of, "If you seek God, look deeply in to nature," and Hawking has written something along the same lines.
There are many of us who feel evolution is a real force and was also put in to force. Astrophysic's relevance is drawn in when trying to ask sincere questions of, let's say , a highly trained naturalist, about the TOeverything's, tie to biology-or stating, "hey what about the concept of 'conciousness,' or isn't quantum mechanics really narly and leaves all these new questions unanswered" and one then gets talked down to by said naturalist.
Yes, we know the scientific method can't be employed for most of what I'm talking about. But man, are there really people that go around every waking hour feeling the scientific method is some kind of sacrament? That's just kind of wierd. It's just a man-made constuct. The scientific method is not a force of nature, no matter how incredibly valuable it has been to mankind. It's almost like some folks here have a poster of C. Darwin on the ceiling, a jar of vasaline on the nightstand and then get up to go to work with a fake Darwin beard on and "Beagle" painted on the back of the car.
Victor Frankel was pretty persuasive in writing on man's inherent thirst for meaning. Don't you think that every "thinking" human is going to at least have some intellectual "wrestling match" over the concept(s) at some point in his/her life all on their own? To think that a biology teacher couldn't lawfully start out the semester with "we are going to teach and study the theory of evolution this semester, a convergence of science from much convincing evidence, experimentation and review. There is debate over how the mechanism came about and was put in to play, but that is a question for outside this class...It will be studied in philosophy or religion class...." is really questionable teaching given we ALL think about this stuff and always have. To just make an innocuous statement about what everyone thinks about anyway and possibly be punished for it is becoming almost Orwellian in nature.
I guess I'm just saying that this pejoritive term of "scientism" is getting richly earned by even the evolutionary biologist IMO; to get made fun of because one seeks some answers outside the scope of natural selection about a possible meaning for life, or dismissing someone who is fairly learned but inducts the possiblity we don't really know jack about how all of this started is not the best way to convert the unwashed masses some high-minded posters on the threads seem to want to help. If they are engaged in something else, it smacks of sport and elitism for personal emotional reasons.
He said nothing of the kind. In fact, he wasn't speaking of the views of *scientists* at all. He was speaking of whether scientific *theories* included any declaration or built-in presumption (for *or* against*) the existence a deity, and he (correctly) stated that they did not. Please pay attention to what is actually being said, and not what you presume someone might be talking about.
Actually, the quotes and concepts about a Higer Power's role in all of this are quite abundant through the years. I can't recall the exact quote, but Einstein said something along the lines of, "If you seek God, look deeply in to nature," and Hawking has written something along the same lines.
Again, you are on an entirely different subject than the one the poster you have misread was talking about.
But man, are there really people that go around every waking hour feeling the scientific method is some kind of sacrament?
No. Why would you ask such a strange question?
That's just kind of wierd. It's just a man-made constuct. The scientific method is not a force of nature, no matter how incredibly valuable it has been to mankind. It's almost like some folks here have a poster of C. Darwin on the ceiling, a jar of vasaline on the nightstand and then get up to go to work with a fake Darwin beard on and "Beagle" painted on the back of the car.
You have a very bizarre, distorted, false, and needlessly insulting view of us. Why don't you tone down the nonsense and try to discuss something we've *actually* said, a position we *actually* hold, or something we've *actually* done?
To think that a biology teacher couldn't lawfully start out the semester with "we are going to teach and study the theory of evolution this semester, a convergence of science from much convincing evidence, experimentation and review. There is debate over how the mechanism came about and was put in to play, but that is a question for outside this class...It will be studied in philosophy or religion class...." is really questionable teaching given we ALL think about this stuff and always have.
I doubt anyone *would* find that objectionable. But that's a poor representation of the kinds of things we *do* find objectionable that some folks are trying to get put into classrooms.
To just make an innocuous statement about what everyone thinks about anyway and possibly be punished for it is becoming almost Orwellian in nature.
The only Orwellian part is your "rewriting history" by misrepresenting the kinds of things that are actually being fought over in classrooms.
I guess I'm just saying that this pejoritive term of "scientism" is getting richly earned by even the evolutionary biologist IMO;
You are entitled to your misguided and incorrect opinion.
to get made fun of because one seeks some answers outside the scope of natural selection about a possible meaning for life, or dismissing someone who is fairly learned but inducts the possiblity we don't really know jack about how all of this started is not the best way to convert the unwashed masses some high-minded posters on the threads seem to want to help.
I agree, but that is *not* a fair description of these discussions. Contrary to your presumption, I haven't seen anyone get "made fun of" for any of the things you mention. I *have* seen people get made fun of for being obnoxious twits who think it's fine sport to ridicule and insult subjects and people they know little about (and most of what they do "know" is wrong), however.
I'd like to see you try to document, say, three examples of what you describe. And no, it *won't* count if the person being "made fun of" was first obnoxious, condescending, belligerent, arrogant, dismissive, belittling, or somesuch themselves (including earlier offenses -- some of the exchanges are due to prior history). Those people get what they deserve.
In order to count, you'll have to find examples of someone actually getting made fun of *merely* for a) "seeking some answers outside the scope of natural selection about a possible meaning for life", or b) "inducts the possiblity we don't really know jack about how all of this started". Go for it. Or ponder retracting your accusation if you can't substantiate it after all.
If they are engaged in something else, it smacks of sport and elitism for personal emotional reasons.
Funny, that's a good description of a lot of anti-evolutionists on these threads. And yes, I *will* be glad to post numerous examples if you wish.