So does is this only a problem for religious fundamentalists or was that just to help me realize you meant me, tooblue and other believers? Also, you are doing the same thing woot and NS are doing; accusing Tooblue of something he hasn't said. While he may very well mean what you say, he certainly didn't' say it here. I can't speak for Tooblue, but I can say that this thread smacks of the sort of gang mentality that so many here complain about enduring on CB. Let the guy speak, disagree if you want, but can we do so based on what he says as opposed to what you think he means?

Look, empiricism has many answers, ultimately it might have all the answers, but not yet. Faith exists and, IMO, it is independent from empirical probing. The lack of empirical proof is not an insurmountable problem for me, or many others, even though we don't ignore the truths that we find are well supported as result of empirical truth. At the same time, assuming the inviolability of certain scientific precepts as the basis for criticism of religious belief, even of a fundamentalist strain, is no wiser in some instances than the problem you describe. This may be tooblue's point.

I'd hate to accuse him of trolling, but it really does seem like he cast 4 or 5 hooks (science articles) at the same time, and then took off. I'd love to hear his actual views on these matters.

Very amusing, but what is your point? DO you think the scientists that 'knew' the age of the fossils weren't incorrect? You deflect from the point without answering it.

He'll be back and is usually happy to defend himself. HE certainly doesn't need me to do it. I don't think he is trolling. I just think you guys need to relax a little when dealing with him and this topic. You are among friends here, no need to bite.

'They' who?

Honestly, "knowledge" isn't really a concept that I find in journals or the class room. If you'd prefer to consider scientific theory as "working assumptions," I don't have a problem with that.

The problems arrive when religionists abuse this uncertainty by insisting that since science isn't a concrete discipline (similar to every other discipline in the world excepting perhaps mathematics), that religion is just as valid a method of discovering truth, or even that religion should be taught in science class, which is one of the major causes of the large backlash going on right now.

That's one of the reasons why I hate creationism and intelligent design so much. They're utterly vacuous, and yet they occasionally cause certain rational thinkers to want to be more sure of things than they actually are in order to counter the absolute surety of the religious. That's a problem. I haven't seen it creep into any of the actual literature, doubt it will, and assume it would be shot down with extreme prejudice if it is ever found, but in the public sphere, I see all sorts of instances of it.

Case in point: Al Gore is a laughing stock. He exaggerates constantly. This has turned a vast number of people off of the concept of global warming entirely, and I fear that his influence has been a net negative as far as science awareness goes. This is a shame. Not that creationism had anything to do with any of that, I just fear that similar situations could develop due to this religious influence.

The anti-science, pro-religion crowd, of course.

Gore is an idiot. HE may have been counterproductive. But you are asking too much for the average schmuck like me to be able to figure this out for all topics.

Why do you hate creationists? I find it hard to understand that. I suppose if you want to make sure this sort of bad thinking doesn't leak into policy, I can understand that, but I think we face more problems from simple pork barrel politics (when it comes to skewing policy in non-scientific directions) than we do from creationists.

Btw, 'working assumption' is OK for me. You are the one that first said scientists 'know' something. Look at your first post.

This is a little exasperating. The thread starts with Tooblue's posts, which we sort of discussed, but you and NS keep dragging it out there to some other larger issue, which I certainly do not see myself as being part of. DO you think I am defending this "anti-science pro-religion" POV?

If I'm coming off as mean-spirited, I apologize. That's not my intent. I'm mostly just being a smart-ass. I like TooBlue. I don't agree with him all the time, but I like him.