Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
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.
|
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.