oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
| Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,12:53) | I mean, come on. On this very page, we have this gem from Midwifetoad stating this:
| Quote | | Science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies, but revealed religion will always be antagonistic to science because it makes unverifiable claims and even makes a virtue of unverifiability. |
Doesn't this smack of "science" versus "religion"? Or maybe I'm not getting your point.
Cheers,
Ut |
It's a true statement.
Unverifiable claims are unverifiable and cannot be address by science. Yet those claims often intrude into the realm of science and are expected to be taken seriously in the scientific realm by those making the claims. I mean, just look at the "science" produced by AIG and similar groups. Total bullshit from beginning to end.
So it might be "science" versus "religion" but not because of any particular effort on the "science" part. If "science" comes up with a mechanism to explain the diversity of life and "religion" does not like it that's not really "science's" problem is it?
So science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies as science does not care about religion but religion sure cares about science.
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
