Big Bang?

[lsavage at westmont.edu]

I am shocked that anyone would be so brash as to conflate "antiscience" and 
"anti-Darwinism". I expect better attention to the proper catagorization of 
things and people from the members of this list. The Western definition of 
science is not the end-all definition, and neither is yours.

My humble suggestion is that you let your heads catch up with your emotions and 
ensure that the things you say actually contain meanings which are not absurd.

(I'm sure absurdity happens to everyone now and again - it is not my intention 
to offend - just please, be a little more attentive in the future, eh?)

Quoting David Casseres <david.casseres at gmail.com>:

> On 9/29/05, jbor at bigpond.com <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > On 30/09/2005, at 3:51 AM, David Casseres wrote:
> >
> > > The Big Bang hypothesis doesn't infer cause from effect.
> >
> > The syllogism goes like this: the universe (experienced/perceived
> > effect) exists, so there must have been a Big Bang (inferred cause).
> 
> Not a cause, just an origin.
> 
> > > It doesn't
> > > address cause at all.
> >
> > So it *is* rabbit out of a hat stuff? Voilà.
> 
> No, the hypothesis doesn't mention a hat, it just tells the story of the
> rabbit.
> 
> > > It is simply a narrative of the history of the
> > > universe.
> >
> > As is the Book of Genesis. Or any other Creation myth.
> 
> If you like.  However the Big Bang hypothesis emerges from observed
> evidence, not from the words of the forefathers.
> 
> > > And it is neither atheism nor agnosticism.  It is just science, which
> > > you insist on conflating with atheism.
> >
> > In the terms of your little allegory, if "Physics" concluded "There is
> > no God", then that'd be atheism. Atheism is the belief, or faith, that
> > there is no God. But when "Physics" says "I don't know whether there
> > is/was a God", that's agnosticism.
> 
> Have it  your way.  I guess it's "agnosticism," but that's a category
> invented by deists.  It means nothing to science.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something I need to say:
> 
> It is monstrous that the antiscience movement has gathered so much
> momentum that it shows up, in its most destructive form, on the
> Pynchon list of all places.  The attack on science is an attack on
> humanity, by way of attacking one of humanity's highest achievements. 
> As well attack literature itself, or philosophy, or music, or any of
> the arts.  I fear for the culture that gave me birth, education, and a
> lifetime of experience.
> 
>