Post by patdolanPost by Odd BodkinPost by Odd BodkinPost by Odd BodkinIt is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other
two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the
Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of
natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has
more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Oh dear. So we uncover the general despising of unGodly science. I see.
Did you know that Francis Collins, recent director of NIH and Nobel
Prize-winning biologist, is a devout Catholic?
So am I. But I come down with the Evangelicals and the Discovery
Institute on Collins. He's not the equivalent of a pedophilic priest.
But he's up there.
Post by Odd BodkinWere you under the impression that there was a hard choice between science
and faith required? Who on earth gave you that misinformation?
You presume too much about me, Bodkin. Science is independent of the God
question. Any post-modern understands that.
Exactly. And so your earlier statement that these “three fundamental
postulates of our modern age” have “more or less replaced” the objects of
faith is just hogwash, as you just admitted.
Oh you foolish, foolish Bodkin. I admitted no such thing. I said
POST-moderns understand science and religion's positions in the cosmos
(as did the pre-moderns). The vast majority of souls alive today are
MODERNS and not POST-moderns. Moderns have no notions that we are at the
close of the scientific age. Moderns are oblivious to the fact that we
are at the dawn of the post-scientific era.
One does not displace the other, as you said. Nor does one flourish when
the other dies.
And I think it’s cute that you think the age of science is nearly over.
Looking forward to the Handmaid’s Tale days, eh?
No. Looking forward to the time when Science is removed from the top peg
on the tool board and taking its rightful place with all the other tools.
I'm sure that the inventor of the scientific method, Father Roger Bacon,
is smiling approvingly.
As far as I know, the perception that science occupies the “top peg on the
tool board” is a misplaced one. There are certain kinds of investigations
that science is particularly well suited for. There are others for which
science is both poorly suited and generally mute. Science is generally mute
on ethics or questions of law, for example. Mathematics is another domain
that will continue regardless of science and nobody is saying that science
is top dog in this arena.
I’m fairly certain that all this hoo-hah about science being the golden boy
of the age is just an artifact of popular attention (e.g. trade books,
biographies, gee-whiz magazines), which has risen with technological
advances (as opposed to science) and a rather busily militaristic century.
It’s not really true among the people actually involved in the field. A
good example of this is that a lot of the revolutionary work in physics
took place in the first half of the 20th century, while instead there was a
huge burst of investment in science at a national level in the 2nd half of
the 20th century, which was fueled by things like WWII, nuclear arms race,
the computing and semiconductor industries, the space race, and so on.
Keep also in mind that the chief areas of science and technology in the
next two or three decades that will be important are 1) fusion energy
generation, 2) other efficient green energy generation and storage (read
“batteries”), 3) genetic manipulation (see CRISPR), particularly for
therapeutics, and 4) robotics and autonomous controls. There will be at
least two orders of magnitude more investment in these areas than there
will be in physics.
Post by patdolanPost by Odd BodkinPost by Odd BodkinDirk is anxious that we move forward on the original project.
Post by Odd Bodkin--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables