I have to admit your post title about the "science jock and his pet dog" caught my attention. Although you are evidently taking exception to TheNaturalist, I can't figure out how you knew he had a pet dog, and since I'm a "science jock", and my avatar has a picture of my pet dog, well... Anyway, caught my attention whether you meant to or not.
I don't have much to say, given the vitriol of your responses to TheNat. However, I'd like to ask you about this statement:
Thats what natural scientist believe... and I really consider them to be a pain in the ass, since they are selfish pointless debaters.
I thought all modern scientists were "natural scientists". I've never seen the term used as an epithet before, tho'. I've also never seen the differentiation you make between them and "evolutionists" (unless you're making some subtle distinction that is beyond me). Could you possibly elaborate on your meaning? For instance, is there a different kind of scientist other than "natural"? Are there scientists of your knowledge or acquaintance that study something other than nature? What is the difference between "evolutionist" and "scientist" (natural or otherwise)?
Wow! Ididnt mean you, although I probably should have given out a survey saying, "Who is a science jock and has a pet dog?". What kind of breed is that?
Heh. Probably not necesary - it was just an odd coincedence. I figured (based on the posts) that you weren't referring to me particularly.
According to the breeder, she's a full-blood golden retriever with a fairly long pedigree, including a few champions. However, from both her looks and her behavior, I find that hard to believe: there's GOT to be some Irish Setter in the woodpile somewhere. Regardless, she's definitely my best friend. :D
I just believe some Evolutionist are more open minded to what other people believe, then that of a Natural scientist. It's just only how I observe them, nothing more.
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it didn't appear to answer my question. Maybe you could highlight the part that does (I freely admit I can miss stuff sometimes). Given the fact that I am both an "evolutionist" - in the sense that I accept evolution as the best current explanation for the diversity of life - and a "scientist" - in the sense that I "do science" for a living - I'm still not seeing the contrast.
I can see that there is a difference between "natural theology" (as practiced throughout most of the 18th and 19th Centuries), and "natural science" as currently practiced, but again I'm missing something. Natural science means to me "the study of the natural world". I guess it would exclude the supernatural by definition, but if that's the only issue I don't see the problem. After all, God (or whatever your particular conception relates to that term), isn't really evident in nature. You could probably argue that some conceptions of god (speaking generically) are compatible with the study of nature, but then you're moving over to deism (god the initial artificer) or even pantheism (nature IS god).
Obviously, this ain't the thread to go into depth on those issues. I don't want to get "purpled" :D .