Religious bigotry, was Re: SCIENCE CONFUSION IN THE US.

[Thomas Lammers]

At 01:24 PM 8/25/00 -0700, Curtis Clark wrote:

>At 05:48 AM 8/24/00, Thomas Lammers wrote:



> >Many of these alternative
> >therapies claim to have an objective, physical, material basis, rather
> >than a mystical ethereal basis.
>
>Indeed, and I think this is a symptom of the "sacredization" of science. I
>once took my dog to an "alternative" vet hoping to get chiropractic
>treatment, and he recommended homeopathic remedies. He explained how the
>water used for dilution was "charged" with the "energy" of the substance,
>which increased through repeated dilution. I said that seemed like magick
>to me, not as an insult, but rather because my religion, Wicca, makes use
>of magick as part of its ritual. He was of course insulted; homeopathic
>medicine is *scientific*, blessed by the Gods of Objective Inquiry (my own
>sarcastic take, not his words). Science has become the Big Kahuna against
>which all else must be judged.
> >But
> >when folks claim their particular little sideline *does* fit into natural
> >law, and even attempt pseudoscientific explanations of it, well then it
> >is fair game for rational analysis of its claims.
>
>Certainly. Religion is the realm of the irrational. That is where its power
>lies. I don't think any of us would claim that science is a better way of
>dealing with things that are fundamentally irrational.

Sounds like we are in complete agreement.  Science is governed by the laws
of nature.  Deity by definition is author of the laws of nature and not
bound by them, i.e., super-natural.  Outside my jurisdiction.

The one time I got suckered into a creationist/evolutionist debate (I was
young and foolish), I concluded by pointing out that science and religion
had equal status in answering their respective questions, but that if
religious folk wanted to come play in OUR ballpark, then they had to play
by OUR rules ... just as we must abide by theirs when we stray into their
domain.

(BTW, I won that debate by highlighting the conflicting Yahwist and Elohist
accounts of Creation intertwined in Genesis, then doing some simple volume
calculations on the numbers of "kinds" of animals (I think I used families
even) Noah had to take on the ark, esp. if you use the Elohist requirement
for 7 of the ritualistically clean and 2 of the unclean (the Yahwist
version is the traditional 2 of each source).  No matter the plants that
won't withstand inundation.  Of course, Yahweh didn't give mankind kosher
laws till a couple books later, but no matter.)


Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-7085
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                 -- Anonymous