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

Over the past several days, pointed claims have been raised by certain present and recently departed Freepers that FreeRepublic has adopted an “anti-science” animus and attitude in recent times. Personally speaking, the claim strikes me as utterly baseless.

Though I do not speak in any official capacity for FR, as a member of this forum for nearly nine years, I have to say FR isn’t “anti-science” at all; it’s “anti abuse of science” — that is, to say, any use of science dedicated to political and social change purposes. The scientific method itself allows no scope for such proclivities/activities.

Personally, I strongly object to this "disenchanted evo" mischaracterization. And Nancy Pearcey’s article well documents the reasons why — in logic and reason — I feel justified in objecting to the baseless claim that FR is "anti-science."

In the end, science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical. When it starts treading on metaphysical territory, it is illegitimately going beyond the scope of its mission, and trespassing on territory that its method is not designed to engage. That is to say, trespassing on philosophy and theology: It simply has no warrant there. And perhaps the time has come when certain “scientists” need to be reminded of that.

FWIW.

1 posted on 10/28/2006 3:22:19 PM PDT by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: betty boop
Thank you oh so very much for this excellent article and for all of your insights!

I have to say FR isn’t “anti-science” at all; it’s “anti abuse of science” — that is, to say, any use of science dedicated to political and social change purposes. The scientific method itself allows no scope for such proclivities/activities.

Having been around about the same length of time as you have, I very, very strongly agree!

Must leave now, but I look forward to making some further comments later this evening.

101 posted on 10/29/2006 9:45:18 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: betty boop

"In the end, science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical. When it starts treading on metaphysical territory, it is illegitimately going beyond the scope of its mission, and trespassing on territory that its method is not designed to engage"


I'd like to second this comment BB. It's right on.


172 posted on 10/31/2006 8:26:33 AM PST by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: betty boop
Over the past several days, pointed claims have been raised by certain present and recently departed Freepers that FreeRepublic has adopted an “anti-science” animus and attitude in recent times.

As far as I know, FR is the only site with an ongoing dialogue on the "crevo" issues.

I learned a lot from both sides.

173 posted on 10/31/2006 8:27:21 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: betty boop

bump


205 posted on 10/31/2006 1:24:56 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: betty boop

Just getting to this. This sums up the debate and the cost of losing it.


279 posted on 11/02/2006 7:53:55 PM PST by Tribune7 (Go Swann Go Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

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