Fair pointsand some of the book I agreed with. Young Earth creationism is blatant bollocks.
I just find his ranty anti-religion to be as annoying and meaningless as the ranty (admittedly mostly right-wing American) pro-religion nutters.
Clearly, I agree that emprical method is the best way of gaining an understanding. I disagree that theism hampers scientific progress though. It's a total fallacy that belief in a god and belief in science are mutually exclusive. Only idiots really think that. If God did create the Universe then it was created to run on the things we can observe through science and the study of the Universe can (if you believe in God) easily be seen as a study of that creation. Isaac Newton anybody?
(I just find his ranty anti-religion to be as annoying and meaningless as the ranty (admittedly mostly right-wing American) pro-religion nutters.
Clearly, I agree that emprical method is the best way of gaining an understanding. I disagree that theism hampers scientific progress though. It's a total fallacy that belief in a god and belief in science are mutually exclusive. Only idiots really think that. If God did create the Universe then it was created to run on the things we can observe through science and the study of the Universe can (if you believe in God) easily be seen as a study of that creation. Isaac Newton anybody?
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Fri 20 Jul 2007, 16:19,
archived)
both theories are bollockseveryone knows the universe was created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster. www.venganza.org
(
ArghZombies No longer has a Leaky QUIM,
Sat 21 Jul 2007, 9:53,
archived)