I guess what I meant wouldn't have been accepted was confusing science and religion. I don't mind people thinking in both of those areas, its just the confusion and ignorance about the nature of each that is troubling.
On Sep 6, 8:36 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<I seem to remember there being more common sense within the masses. > In other words, these sort of idiotic things wouldn't have been > socially accepted at all... >> > > I don't remember any such thing. :-) > > About 12 years ago, I first encountered the idea that the "universe" > was fine tuned for life. Wherever I read it, it was represented to be > science and I thought that was really cool. It wasn't until years > later that I understood why the idea wasn't very scientific. > > I was gullible probably due to the decades of religious indoctrination > which made me receptive any scientific endorsement that we were > somehow special. This gullibility remained even though I already > considered myself to be an agnostic. > > So it doesn't surprise me at all that the public, even the > scientifically literate public, is prepared to accept Behe's work as > science. Most people *want* to reconcile science and religion. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
