For Government, Science Is 'In' Again

Reader Comments
Back to blog

It is sometimes said in academic circles that physicists think they're gods, but God thinks she's a mathematician.
Believers have no concept of mathematical proof and often regard generally well supported physical constructs as "only" theory.
The person who denounces the Big Bang theory as a "rock" blowing up and creating the universe has consciously decided not to pursue understanding beyond skepticism.
The cynic in me sees these people as children in need of scientific discipline to protect themselves, and us, from their ignorance.
The meaning of life, as Monty Python simply put it is to, "Try to get along with one another, get plenty of rest, and eat a low fat diet."

Marty Kay Zee of CA 6:14PM December 26, 2008

So, what exactly are your qualifications to decide what is truly science and what is not? Oh yeah, you don't have any qualifications in anything, anything at all. You should just be quiet and hide your ignorance from the world.

Collin Dow of OR 11:51PM December 06, 2008

You must have missed my post.... Science teaches the "Big Bang" - no proof, total mystery, as the reason for all of the known universe.
Logic tells me that a "Big Bang" is more likely to have been used by an intelligent creator Than by a self creating, spontaneously detonating, auto animating rock - I'm just sayin'.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 12:20PM December 04, 2008

Creationists push a narrow Christian-based, fundamentalist version of creation which stands in stark disregard of science and reason. Science is what needs to be taught in school; they can get all the superstition that parents want to instill in them at home. It is wrong to suppose that anyone wanting to keep religion out of the classroom is automatically non-religious. Many of us believe in a higher power but accept that it is all a mystery. let just teach the science in school.

Byron of TX 11:59AM December 04, 2008

This is funny.
During the campaign Democrats thumped the bible louder and harder than any republican candidate in history.
This is what a religios conservative from the D or R can take from this: We want your religious votes ... and we will mouth all of the correct platitudes ... but, do not expect any representation.
Don't worry ... every election cycle Democrats find religion.

Stunned in Pittsburgh of PA 3:58PM December 03, 2008

Bonnie, This argument is really propaganda to convince the world that eco-feminism is based in science while any other philosophy is religion. Guess what--eco-feminism is religion just as much as Judeo-Christianity or Hinduism is. It is just polytheistic. Does it have some good ideas for how to live? Absolutely, but so do the others.
"Grown-ups" have the capacity to question, analyze, and take from a variety of ideas to form a synthetic, egosyntonic logic that is at once humble--man is limited in his knowledge; hopeful--man is able to learn and progress with trial and error and many ideas; and supports autonomy--the belief in one's own abilities--and tolerance, eventually allowing true interdependence. The most a "grown-up" scientist can say about the origin of the earth is that with the evidence we currently have there is a major theory backed by much data, which is opposed by other data, as well as by beliefs of several major religions. There are theories that reconcile the Biblical and the Big Bang, but have other elements which are disputed by both sides, and still leave the idea of an eternal creative consciousness up in the air--as do the theories of the Big Bang and evolution.
So before you condemn Christian belief to superstition, and pat the new administration on the back for its maturity, I would suggest that you take to heart that even the most educated amongst us is, in reality, incredibly naive in the vast complexities of our earth--let alone the universe.
That said, I agree that the Bush administration discounted science when it suited them to an appalling degree. But picking science to suit an issue is hardly confined to Republicans. The grave injustice done science by GWB is that he has blocked scientific progress for political reasons without national discussion. But the hardcore pro-abortionists do the same when pursuing the preservation of partial birth abortion--and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both support that. It just doesn't step in the way of biological scientific advancement, only in the way of the advancement of humanity--much more complex science and hence more "fuzzy" now.
Science is nonpartisan. It is a statement of what is known, not what is not. When dealing with what is not known, it is theory and theory may be proven wrong in the future, even if it looks right at this time. Religion is a belief in what has not been proved. It is taken on faith, even in the face of opposing evidence, recognizing that evidence is limited by man's understanding. You are, by this judgmental comment, perpetuating the myth that religion and science are antithetical, furthering the derisiveness. As noted above, humility is a necessary aspect of maturity--haven't seen much of that in Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Bonnie Erbe...or George W. Bush for that matter.

MontanaMountainWoman of MT 9:45PM December 02, 2008

Let me see if I get this right... If a person believes in a self creating rock, which blows itself up. Then, as its pieces hurtle across space, it creates the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, physics and of course time itself - Organizes the universe through the magic of happenstance and then self animates and creates the intricate web we call life, again by accident then one is intellectually superior and personally "evolved".
On the other hand, if you believe that there was an eternal creative consciousness involved you are a supersticious, backward, bumpkin.
Ah, I think I'm goin' with window number 2 - Since there's no third window.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 5:27PM December 02, 2008

Biblical interpretations of science and history can either be proven right, or they can't. We either have an earth that is about 6,000 years old or one that is much older--- billions of years old.
If the 6,000 year-old earth theory is more provable than the billions theory, Obama will be the last one standing in the way of that knowledge being disseminated. But it has to be based on more than just faith in the "word". Not discounting the faith part, but other acceptable evidence will also be required.

of 2:43PM December 02, 2008