Big Bang?

[Otto]

But nobody has said something like that.

Nobody ever claimed here that "science is truth," which of course would 
be nonsense. Actually the Big Bang-theory is the most likely explanation 
for the observable universe, not more, not less. It's the data telling 
us that, but we know that our image might change if/when we get better data.

What is rejected is the claim that a non-scientific but religious way of 
thinking like intelligent design makes, that it scientifically can tell 
something about the origin of the universe. Therefor it isn't 
intolerance but absolutely necessary to refuse ID (= an attempt to keep 
people stupid). They simply have no data, only their belief.

It should be science, the actual point of its knowledge that's taught in 
the schools, religion should be restricted to the church where it belongs.

Regarding Pynchon's work:
a "science" described like you did indeed would be "as far removed from 
the schema of Pynchon's work, as could possibly be imagined." But nobody 
was lobbying here for such a science.

Otto

jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

> On 04/10/2005 Otto wrote:
>
>> Wasn't it you who had put up the binary opposition of science and 
>> belief in this discussion?
>
>
> Not at all. In fact, it's precisely that binary opposition which I've 
> been challenging: i.e. the "science is truth and light and all must 
> kneel at its altar" vs "belief in god/s is primitive and idiotic and 
> believers are intellectually inferior" argument. It's about as 
> monstrous a sermon, and as far removed from the schema of Pynchon's 
> work, as could possibly be imagined.
>
> best
>
>


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de