I don't favor either. I am not a proponent of "magical thinking" I am a physical scientist with a master's in marine geophysics.
My point in this case is not to legitimize the idea of people basing their understanding on science on religious doctrine, my point is that the OP is running a huge risk of alienating people who are clever, thinking, scientists because they believe they have religious convictions.
To put it another way, when people speak about a subject with righteous indignation and claim that "X" group is unreasonable, you run a great risk. The risk you run is that many of the people who you might find sympathetic to your argument aren't listening because you have already offended them.
Let's not split hairs and say that "religious convictions" means someone who believes doctrine over documented evidence, because I assure you, many forensic scientists, paleogeologists, and the like will call themselves people with "religious convictions" and still believe in evolution.
I'm not touting creationism or doctrine driven science! I'm saying be careful what labels you throw out, because many church going, faithful, but also incredibly clever scientists I used to know would have stopped listening long ago since you already assume they can't be "reasoned with."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2008-02-19 09:25 pm (UTC)My point in this case is not to legitimize the idea of people basing their understanding on science on religious doctrine, my point is that the OP is running a huge risk of alienating people who are clever, thinking, scientists because they believe they have religious convictions.
To put it another way, when people speak about a subject with righteous indignation and claim that "X" group is unreasonable, you run a great risk. The risk you run is that many of the people who you might find sympathetic to your argument aren't listening because you have already offended them.
Let's not split hairs and say that "religious convictions" means someone who believes doctrine over documented evidence, because I assure you, many forensic scientists, paleogeologists, and the like will call themselves people with "religious convictions" and still believe in evolution.
I'm not touting creationism or doctrine driven science! I'm saying be careful what labels you throw out, because many church going, faithful, but also incredibly clever scientists I used to know would have stopped listening long ago since you already assume they can't be "reasoned with."