Useful to hear what search engines are dominating locally. The blinkers on what's happening in non-english speaking countries comes with the territory, not just on the Internet but on the awareness of literature, movies, films etc.
Western science has a history of being humbled just when its protagonists thought they had the game wrapped up.
In the case of evolutionary theory I'm not saying that the science is wrong in terms of age of the universe, for example. I'm saying western scientists are making a straw man of creationsm by picking on the most limited nad untested of the theories and then saying its all wrong.
A careful reading and consideration of Descartes Meditations - one of the founding fathers of modern science - will reveal the source of a limited perception of the nature of reality on the part of Western science. Its is due to a poorly run experiment and it seems that blind spot has bedevilled all the generations Western scientists that followed (until very recently).
There are fanatics on both side of the science and creationism debate. The gung ho scientists who rush to profess their adherence to the present "correct view" and assure their standing as a person of true science amongst their peers by out-of-hand dismissing creationsim. And the die hard fundamentalist ceationists who are prepared to prove that their simplistic view of religous text by attempting to bludgeon anyone with opposing views into submission before their "true" knowledge.
Both viewpoints are the result of poor science. There is a meeting point for both views - and in fact a high degree of agreement. Science and spiritual views of creation are buddies when the the correct analysis is done and respective blind spots acknlwedged.
I can applaud a scientist recanting an outmoded theory but I'm less impressed when it also parades as a gung ho attitude to creationsim.
Slashdot Mirror
Useful to hear what search engines are dominating locally. The blinkers on what's happening in non-english speaking countries comes with the territory, not just on the Internet but on the awareness of literature, movies, films etc.
Western science has a history of being humbled just when its protagonists thought they had the game wrapped up. In the case of evolutionary theory I'm not saying that the science is wrong in terms of age of the universe, for example. I'm saying western scientists are making a straw man of creationsm by picking on the most limited nad untested of the theories and then saying its all wrong. A careful reading and consideration of Descartes Meditations - one of the founding fathers of modern science - will reveal the source of a limited perception of the nature of reality on the part of Western science. Its is due to a poorly run experiment and it seems that blind spot has bedevilled all the generations Western scientists that followed (until very recently).
There are fanatics on both side of the science and creationism debate. The gung ho scientists who rush to profess their adherence to the present "correct view" and assure their standing as a person of true science amongst their peers by out-of-hand dismissing creationsim. And the die hard fundamentalist ceationists who are prepared to prove that their simplistic view of religous text by attempting to bludgeon anyone with opposing views into submission before their "true" knowledge. Both viewpoints are the result of poor science. There is a meeting point for both views - and in fact a high degree of agreement. Science and spiritual views of creation are buddies when the the correct analysis is done and respective blind spots acknlwedged. I can applaud a scientist recanting an outmoded theory but I'm less impressed when it also parades as a gung ho attitude to creationsim.