take it or leave it

[QUOTE]Originally posted by skibum_theory:
I do think it is bad science to claim that god doesn't exist based on science, such as Richard Dawkins. It is not sciences part to dismiss the paranormal, because the paranormal can not be observed and critisized using the scientific method. This is my view as incoherently as i sound, take it or leave it.[/B][/QUOTE]Hi Skibum. I have to agree, although I place myself in the agnostic camp, being of the opinion that a) god, or God, can neither be proven nor disproven by natural means and b) the odds of us (mankind) being able to understand some form of supreme creator are pretty damn small. While I think that Dawkins is a good writer I diagree with his statements re: science and religion; it is my opinion that the man should take a course in the Philosophy of Science, it would outline to him his errors in this area. I also disagree with the farther reaches of his selfish DNA concepts for a number of scientific reasons (I think that the highest that "selfish" DNA can reach would be transposons, p-elements, and other sequences that act like genomic virus's and copy themselves over and over). I am more of the Gould camp that religion and science occupy separate demes or areas, although I think that Gould has fallen to much in love with PE and has tried to push that aspect of evolution too far I like Miller as well, I thought that Darwins God was very well written. If you want another good author try Gabriel Dover, the originator of the molecular drive theory (or subset theory) of evolution.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

​

[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-24-2002]