[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Is the Study of Dinosaurs Science?
In a message dated 95-08-09 20:32:35 EDT, firstname.lastname@example.org (James Shields)
>>(imagine actually even suspecting that dinosaurs were 'satanic' -
>Perhaps, but can we prove they weren't creations of the devil (or whatever)?
Bah! Can you prove YOU'RE not a creation of the devil? Beyond doubt? How do
we know that creationists aren't a "creation of the devil" sent to confound
and annoy scientists in their attempts to elucidate the way things work
(and--if you're religious and must include God in the grand equation--thereby
come to appreciate God's achievements)?
>If we want to fight the creationists, we're going to have start doing it
>with proper scientific debate and not by quoting "scientific dogma". We
>cannot simply dismiss such ideas as "rediculous" without proper discussion.
The time for "proper scientific debate" with creationists was past a hundred
years ago during the 19th century. The only way to battle creationists, who
will not listen to reason and cannot comprehend scientific arguments, is
political suppression: keep them out of the schools, out of political office,
and out of the mainstream of society. Let them babble their idiocies to each
other in the confines of their Creation Research Institutes to their hearts'
>It is very hard to totally disprove the theory that the Earth was created in
>4004 BC complete with dinosaur bones and radioactive isotope rations.
It is not just "very hard," it is impossible--and therefore unscientific. It
is also impossible to disprove the "theory" (what a misuse of the word
"theory" THAT is!) that the whole universe was created in one fell swoop five
minutes ago, including us with all our memories intact. After a while, you
have to get a grip on reality and acknowledge that dinosaur bones,
radioactive isotopes, and all the rest really do exist out there, and that
paleontology, cosmology, and radioactive dating methods do have a measure of