Ars Technica’s John Timmer takes The New York Times to task over the ridiculous anti-science propaganda that keeps showing up on it’s editorial pages.
The observation most important, and disturbing, is the following:
Not content with undermining the nature and practice of science, the editorial page has gone on to question the very rationale for science itself. In a truly odd editorial, The Times advanced the claim that science was little more than an act of faith, the faith that the universe is regular and comprehensible. This claim gets so many things wrong it’s hard to know where to start.
Let’s be perfectly clear: creationism threatens not just the theory of Darwinian evolution, but the very concept of scientific discovery. That is because there is so much scientific information that contradicts the possibility of creationism being factually true that all science has to be wrong for creationism to be right.
This is way I take a zero tolerance position with regard to the belief that creationism (and its ilk) should be considered a science. It is dangerous, as it creates a world view that human observation and analysis is universally untrue. In such a world people would be paralyzed in their thought processes.
I’ve said this before: you can believe whatever you want, so long as you understand the difference between science and philosophy. Creationism is philosophy. Evolution is science. If you choose not to reconcile the two that’s your business, but don’t mix them up and start trying to convince people your screwed up ideas are right.
Tags: Science
Creationism is a philosophy? Isn’t it more of a bedtime story? So does this mean The Three Little Pigs is a philosophy?
sadly no those weren’t german gummy bears but they were still equally tasty since they were free. how is “studying” going?
You talkin’ to me?
yeah i’m talkin to you!
There is no necessary conflict between science and religion if the nature of religion is truly understood. Science asks how, religion asks why.