Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ward
From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Lame?  LAME???
Message-ID: <1457@hao.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 08:47:43 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1457
Posted: Fri Apr 12 08:47:43 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 02:28:03 EST
References: <1576@decwrl.UUCP> <1454@hao.UUCP> <885@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 19

> Quite so.  And that puts a certain amount of pressure on the central
> dogma, if it is alleged to be the sole or dominant mechanism of
> evolutionary change. 

It's possible that the death of science for you stems from the
fact that you consider science to be a dogma, and therefore in
conflict with the dogma of your religious faith.

Those for whom science is still alive consider the body of knowlege
given us by science to be very incomplete and no doubt wrong
in some respects.  That is to say, not dogmatic.

This is not to say that there are not many tenured professors
of science for whom science has died. (did I get all my negatives
straight?)  Scientific dogmatism is a reflection on the individual,
not on science itself.  If science ever does get to be dogmatic,
then it will certainly be time to relegate it to the status of
a religion.  Then we can decide issues in the tried and true
religious method:  we can have wars.