[Coyoteman]

You assign the name “science” to the methodology that has developed over the past four hundred years as if it were the key to all knowledge and will never be superceded by a different, more fruitful paradign. No doubt our science is highly utilitarian, but so was the science of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. It was surpassed by the science of the Greeks, who put knowledge on a more theoretical basis, one which was not surppassed until modern times. If you do believe in scientific progress, consider what science fiction writers have proposed: a “mega-science” that is as superior to our own as ours is to Aristole’s because it introduced principles as yet undiscovered by us. One only has to reflect on the way we discovered the limitation’s of Newton’s science and the “invention” of relativity and quantum physics as we encounter phenomenon beyond explanation by the old principles. I have the feeling that if we ever creat AI, it will NOT be as the result of extrapolating what we know now, but because we are suddenly faced by the unknown and must rethink our approach.

So science has improved from primitive beginnings, and continues to grow more accurate in its methods and findings.

OK, I can live with that.

Do you see any evidence that science will, or needs to turn to, magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?

Or will science keep on exploring the natural world and exploring reality, as it has for the past several hundred years -- in spite of the deprecations of the anti-science folks (generally believers in one or more of the above list)?

[RobbyS]

“Science,” which is to say human beings, has been exploring the natural world since....(You fill in the blanks.). That does not mean that “progress” is inevitable for necessarily sustainable. The science of China “ran out of gas” in the 18th Century without ever developing anything like the principles of western science. Ditto, India. I have expressed my faith in the future of science, but that does not mean that we might not just suddenly run into cycles of up and down. Toynbee is now out of fashion, but we would do well to think of civilizations as organisms, which are born, flourish, decline and die and are succeeded by civilizations that have lesser or greater achievements. During the past two hundred years, we have witnessed hugh changes in the material condition of mankind, which has caused a vast improvment in our moral condition. All the same, the profound pessimism underlying the glorbal warming panic means are our elites are full of =fear for the future. For them, I think, it is a matter of seizing control, of putting on the brakes, and its all because of fear—superstitious fear, because the average rich man knows no more about climate than the average devotee of astrology. About astrology, I remind you that Kepler was an astrologer. So far as I am concerned, the earth-warming crowd are simply the modern day equivalents. They are well paid because the rich wish to feel that somehow they can if not control their destiny then at least they can predict it.

[CottShop]

[[Do you see any evidence that science will, or needs to turn to, magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?]]

No- I see evidence that shoudl cause science to turn FROM magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?

Psssst- ID doesn’t rely on ANY of those- but nice try- trying to dishonestly paint the science as soemthign it isn’t- Is dishonesty the only weapon you have to defend your relgious beleif about life with? Seriously- is it? Every post you make you seriously misrepresent, mistate, and mislead people into thinking somethign that simply isn not true- you present your ready made comments time and time again- time and time again they are soundly refuted and exposed for thje dishonest posts that they are, and yet you continue to present them as though nothing had ever been said before in regards to them. It’s liek listening to a broken record.

Tell me Coyote- IF Macroevolution is worng, then what? Shoudldn’t there be another method proposed and excplored? What exactly is science to you? is Macroevolution the ONLY criteria used when jidging what is and what isn’t science? Who died and made Macroevolution the only criteria for science and for life? When was Macroevolution crowned the only scinetific possibility? I must havem issed that ceremony- What will you do when more and more evidence of design shows intelligent causation? and when more and more serious dead ends to Macroevolution are exposed? ? Just curious to know how many impossiblities it would take to convince you that Macroevolution nver happend? Because quite frankly, there are a lot of serious impossiblities as it stands, yet, apparently, if there’s a twinkle of possiblities- say soemthign liek 10 to hte 350’th power possibility for just ONE single incident, let alone hte trillions of incidents needed for the species we know about today, then apparently, ‘it could have hsppened’? Whos practicing religious theology again?