Talk:Science as religion/Einstein
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This page has been introduced because it is felt that if Evolution can be questioned within Wikiversity, then so can Gravity - after all, it's only a theory. I hope it is understood. Please discuss... (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.51.69 (talk • contribs) )
- To me, you seem to be attempting to mock Wikiversity. While this topic is something that could be discussed in good faith, a careful line should be tread here, and pursue the object in good faith. I'm not sure that we need any agents provocateurs at Wikiversity right now. If you are serious about contributing to Wikiversity, I recommend you register here. The Jade Knight 06:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The matter is serious. It appears that the 'Science as Religion' article merely concentrates on one particular scientific theory. This led me to believe that it is a cover for ID, and lo and behold the rest of the article is about evolution. The scientific method is larger than any one theory and advances by disproving a particular theory in favor of one that more closely fits observations. Gravity is a prime example where Newton's theory of gravity was superceded by Einstein's. Gravity is also important in the discussion because it is a powerful predictive theory that leads sciencists to conclusions about the nature of the universe - the big bang etc. There could indeed be elements of religion in such thinking as it leads to a possible point of creation. From another angle, if one does not dismiss ID then one cannot easily dismiss IF so easily. Indeed if there is any weight to ID then IF becomes more probable - totally directed by a 'higher power'. I am in no way mocking Wikiversity, indeed I am defending it by ensuring a balance is achieved. I have helped build several pages when it was part of wikibooks already and am keen to continue.(The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.51.69 (talk • contribs) )
- People believe in ID; no one seriously believes in IF. As such, it is impossible to compare them as similar belief systems. If you wish to make such a comparison, it will need to be on entirely different grounds. You're welcome to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of Naturalism, if you like, or of ID, or of Atheism or Agnosticism, or of Buddhism or Islam—but please do not bring in something which is satirical in nature and designed explicitly to mock the views of another and claim that it is an equal example. The Jade Knight 02:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The matter is serious. It appears that the 'Science as Religion' article merely concentrates on one particular scientific theory. This led me to believe that it is a cover for ID, and lo and behold the rest of the article is about evolution. The scientific method is larger than any one theory and advances by disproving a particular theory in favor of one that more closely fits observations. Gravity is a prime example where Newton's theory of gravity was superceded by Einstein's. Gravity is also important in the discussion because it is a powerful predictive theory that leads sciencists to conclusions about the nature of the universe - the big bang etc. There could indeed be elements of religion in such thinking as it leads to a possible point of creation. From another angle, if one does not dismiss ID then one cannot easily dismiss IF so easily. Indeed if there is any weight to ID then IF becomes more probable - totally directed by a 'higher power'. I am in no way mocking Wikiversity, indeed I am defending it by ensuring a balance is achieved. I have helped build several pages when it was part of wikibooks already and am keen to continue.(The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.51.69 (talk • contribs) )
This is a little ridiculous. We're putting all these things in the EVOLUTION section, when they are not only not examples of evolution, they are clearly topics for a sociology, religion, or philosophy section! Could we simply take these out and move them to their proper locations? -Tom (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.206.33.49 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 29 September 2007)