[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: "Eyes Open" - Science, Science Fiction, Galilieo, and Something else



> It's curious that a recent dramatic program (which I finally got to see)
> that dealt rather eloquently (in my opinion) with the issue of the
> repression of scientific knowledge and research by an establishment that
> felt it had a great deal to lose if its myths were shattered has
> engendered so much rancor because of some genuine flaws in the factual
> underpinning of the story.
> Have we all forgotton Galileo allready? 

    There is a difference being repression and ignoring nonesense.
Scientists may not always be totally open-minded, but I honestly beleive
if a theory has a good case behind it, and enough evidence to support
it, it will garner enough support to keep it in sight.  Creationists
and other people who present absurd or poorly evidenced claims like
to claim there is a "conspiracy of repression" in science because no one
takes them seriously.  The conspiracy doesn't exist.
     Rarely, yes, when an idea is ignored it is because no one wants to
hear it.  Usually though, the idea just doesn't stack up against a
better theory and larger mass of evidence that won the majority over in
the first place.  Show me one Galileo, I'll show you 100 Carl Baughs.   
     However, I think there may be an element of truth in the claims by
creationists that evolution is presented dogmatically.  A month ago, I
watched a tape of a debate at Stanford called "Darwin of Trial", and I was
absolutely appalled at the presentation of evolutionary theory made in the
lecture.  He fully supported the irritating allegation made by
creationists that evolution a religion that presents some sort of
alternate cosmology, rather then just being a unifying theme of biology, 
by saying things like "evolution tells us there is no God" or "evolution
says there is no life after death".  With this kind of presentation, can
we really blame people for thinking that there is more dogma then
substance to evolution?  

LN Jeff
O-