June 2007 - Post of the Month

modulous writes:But why bother? It isn't necessary. Non-scientists using science sounding stuff to try and show that scientists have got science wrong??? Why not just say 'We don't accept the conclusions reached by natural science?' - trying to show that those conclusions are invalid within the framework of science by ignoring the majority of the physical evidence is not explaining how they feel that science is wrong - it is trying to convince others to distrust the authority that is science in favour of the authority that is them.Choose a knowledge gaining method and stick with it. Don't try and use a little bit of naturalistic methodology as it suits one (ie when the conclusions can be made to sound like they agree with one's supernatural myth of choice) since that is sloppy thinking and learning. When they do it knowing they are ignoring important evidence, that they are providing inconsistent thinking styles, and teaching misleading information...we should not be celebrating.One thing that confused me was that you said you disagreed with flood geology - but then you say that if it brainwashes wins hearts and minds then you celebrate it. Personally I find that reprehensible and hope to convince you eventually that this is so. If they want to spread that they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old then so be it - that's their belief. They shouldn't hijack the trust in scientific authority to gain a footing in the cultural battle unless they believe there is a NEED for underhand tactics.Perhaps there is a need for these tactics - but it doesn't stop them from being intellectually lazy, dishonest and intellectually dangerous.