Recently, a viral meme has been circulating, NASA has demonstrated that when the heavenly bodies align that a broom can be stood on end. Except NASA did not make such a statement. But it passed into common lore, common lore about science.
That brings up the question of how we acquire ideas on science or any subject (even religion!). Science is less about a reasoned approach to the natural world than the accumulation of countless naive science theories; scientists always find themselves needing to counter the preconceived notions about science. Evolution and global warming are two very controversial examples, the broomstick nonsense is harmless by comparison.
Since the likes of Dawkins says some very controversial things on religion, few are willing to use him as a resource on biology, would any real Christian ever appeal to Dawkins? Robert Sungenis wrote some very detailed and exhaustive books on religion (specifically, Catholic apologetics on key point of the Protestant- Catholic divide), then decided to approach cosmology in the same way, proposing geocentric views. Sungenis may be a credible source (!) on scriptural support on Catholic views on faith and scripture. And his latest endeavor brings in the broad topic of natural revelation and understanding nature. Should we look to Sungenis for science?
I don't know the extent of Russian influence in affecting public opinion, but much of the flotsam and jetsam we glean from the internet is picked up uncritically. Even when we will put any political statement from the other side to the fiercest scrutiny.
Maybe we have not left the age of superstition, but our superstitions merely evolve.
That brings up the question of how we acquire ideas on science or any subject (even religion!). Science is less about a reasoned approach to the natural world than the accumulation of countless naive science theories; scientists always find themselves needing to counter the preconceived notions about science. Evolution and global warming are two very controversial examples, the broomstick nonsense is harmless by comparison.
Since the likes of Dawkins says some very controversial things on religion, few are willing to use him as a resource on biology, would any real Christian ever appeal to Dawkins? Robert Sungenis wrote some very detailed and exhaustive books on religion (specifically, Catholic apologetics on key point of the Protestant- Catholic divide), then decided to approach cosmology in the same way, proposing geocentric views. Sungenis may be a credible source (!) on scriptural support on Catholic views on faith and scripture. And his latest endeavor brings in the broad topic of natural revelation and understanding nature. Should we look to Sungenis for science?
I don't know the extent of Russian influence in affecting public opinion, but much of the flotsam and jetsam we glean from the internet is picked up uncritically. Even when we will put any political statement from the other side to the fiercest scrutiny.
Maybe we have not left the age of superstition, but our superstitions merely evolve.
Comment