So what's the point, am I just attacking science? No. I am pointing out how easy it is to come to a belief system that you have faith in while believing you have "facts." Science, you know, reality.Blog post here.
There is more evidence for the existence of life after death than there is for the existence of the Oort cloud. There is direct observation through multiple replications of controlled studies with significant statistical results that demonstrate that persons can move objects with their minds. There is similar evidence that people can "remotely view" - that is see objects psychically. But people who will confidently discuss the complex nature of an Oort cloud and how it it influenced by "Tidal forces ... from stars in the Milky Way's galactic disk with some pull from the galactic core ... " will roll their eyes in supreme contempt for anyone who would dare to try and seriously discuss such "pseudo science."
This month on Stoxpoker, TheBryce posted a blog entry containing this final paragraph summing up his feelings about creationsim vs evolutionary theory (emphasis mine):
Teaching children that the Genesis-creation myth is a legitimate hypothesis as to the history of human life is a tragedy. In doing so children are being implicit taught that evidence and expertise do not matter, that reason doesn't count, and that it is ok to simply pretend that whatever beliefs satisfy the immediate needs of your personality are correct without any substantiation, rather than taking the time and effort to investigate the matter and modify your world-view accordingly. When it comes to the history of life on earth what each of us believes is not terribly important to our daily lives, but the reasons for believing it, the mechanism for forming beliefs on which to act upon is much bigger than that. If that mechanism is faulty or deficient the consequences will seep through like a sickness into all aspects of one's life. When it comes to decision making faith, as I have defined it here, is a hindrance and a liability, and is certainly not something we should encourage in children, nor is it something that should be exalted as a virtue. It is strictly a vice.
Makes me wonder what he and those who post in threads about these issues, think about things like psychism or mediumship or any of the fields that are so often relegated to the "pseudo-science" basement? What's more, why is it so important to attack people's belief systems when they are different from your own? Should we really define this as "vice?" Or "sickness?"
I taught both genetics and evolutionary theory. I understand that things change over time. Though they change less than some think (see: "Red Queen Hypothesis")
But just how much separation do we want in society? How much should one group villify another, assert their intellectual or moral or whatever kind of superiority?Can anyone tell me how this is useful? What happens when to be "smart" a child must believe that there is no God, no life after death, no power of consciousness? God may be a hypothetical, (depending on how one defines "God") but the other things are not.
What if no one is allowed to explore outside the narrow boundaries of "evidence and expertise" as defined by the bigoted few, whether they are the armchair scientists of Bryce's ilk or the pulpit-pounding ones he is objecting to?
