In article <1133408861.796609.247250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "PD"
>Seppo Renfors wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
>> > > PD wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> > > >
>> > > > I agree with the last statement wholeheartedly. At best, IDers can
>> > > > point the gaps in the evolutionary theory (or rather, in the
>> > > > experimental gaps that remain for support of the theory) and classify
>> > > > it as being in the domain of the Yet Unknown, and then insist that the
>> > > > door is still open to the *possibility* of an intelligent designer. It
>> > > > would be even more foolish for a scientific bigot to assert that the
>> > > > Yet Unknown demonstrates the *impossibility* of an intelligent
>> > > > designer.
>> > >
>> > > Uhu..... and what defines a "scientific bigot" and how does that
>> > > differ from a "religions bigot"? The later can most likely be defines
>> > > as anyone who claims THEIR "God", or at least their VERSION of a god,
>> > > is the only god. In religion faith is all that matters - nothing else
>> > > counts. In science raw faith is a hindrance and burden, it prevents
>> > > thinking - yet the two can live in harmony alongside each other as
>> > > long as the twain shall remain divorced - the exception being ID that
>> > > requires, nay demands it be a "science", thereby is attempting to
>> > > abolish actual science.
>> > Both these characterizations are off the mark.
>> > It is a mistake to think that in religion, faith is all that matters
>> > and that nothing else counts. Faith is the belief in something for
>> > which we have no evidence, but it does not *necessarily* deny the
>> > existence of something for which we do have evidence.
>> You misunderstand "faith" belongs to the "believer" to whom "god" is
>> real and needs no proof - all else flows from there. It is NOT limited
>> to that which we have no "evidence" - specially in relation to ID, it
>> overlays and usurps the evidence and replaces itself where science
>That is a blanket overgeneralization that is completely unwarranted.
>You are maintaining that those with faith cannot be scientists because
>their faith would cloud their vision of evidence. In so doing, you are
>dismissing any scientist who is not also an atheist. Is this really
>what you would claim?
I happen to know some excellent, religious physicists. Never noticed
their faith interfering with their science in any way.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"