DIYbanter - View Single Post

Han

wrote in news:njvtk7dmej4vah27a052fpk50af929gt7j@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:23:19 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:00:21 -0500, Michael Joel
wrote:

So I end the post (I know some people will think I'm getting off the
soap box)

Your interpretation of science as religion shows a lack of
understanding. Me I have no faith in humankinds ability to percieve an
omnipotent entity and what that entity intended or intends.

Remember the answer to life and everything.
The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

I can't agree with the last statement of Clare's. Science tries to
explain things from the perspective of proven truisms. 1+1=2 etc. No
faith, no believe, no religion is involved. It goes from there and gets
then at the edge of belief (not faith, not religion) when we try to use
science to explain where we came from. Using the proven theory of
evolution, using math, physics and chemistry, including thermodynamics
and quantum mechanics. As discussed before, hypotheses try to formulate
a theory (based on observed or postulated observable facts) before it is
proven, while a theory is supposed to be fully proven.

There are still many things we do not (fully) understand. That follows
the "law" that says if a theory is proven finally, there should be more
questions coming out of that work than there were before the theory was
proven.

I agree that laws may have originated from religious beliefs, but almost
all civilizations have a core set of identical laws that are similar to
the US Constitution as well as the 10 commandments. Maybe they could be
explained evolutionarily as promoting (or donditional for) the survival
of the fittest ... A sort of "convergent" evolution, a well-validated
concept.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid