Letters to the Editor
-
Late coming back, but as they say
...better late than never.
For those of you trying to get my goat about what I said regarding Occam's Razor, you are seriously wrong.
First off: I never said my statements came from a religious viewpoint. I happen to be very much against religious bashing of science. But I'm also against SLOPPY ARGUMENTS. My point was made not about the validity of science, but the validity of taking someone else's words and twisting them for one's own purposes. No matter WHO you are, or what you're defending, that is basically dishonest. If the fundies can't do it, the scientists can't do it either.
Second: The idea of science being "simpler" is indeed a fallacy. That it is better, more logical, more elegant (while I certainly agree with that) is not the point. It is not simpler.
The religious argument goes, "God made the world". You can't get simpler than that. It may be ignorant or superstitious or what-have-you (not that I make those kinds of snap judgments, unlike many), but it is very definitely simpler. Scientific knowledge requires years of study and a willingness to apply oneself to the pursuit of knowledge that is not easily gotten. By definition it is more complex.
THAT is the argument I was making. Not that science is somehow wrong, but that it is more complicated. Is anybody here going to claim that it isn't? Really? Than why do so many people who are lazy, cowed or happy in their ignorance reject it? If it were simpler, any asinine idiot could grasp the concepts of science.
And last, to the idea that my argument is "trivial" or "insignificant": Excuse me, but I do not consider the spectacle of scientists misusing an argument, ignoring its creator's intended purpose, and twisting words and concepts to score points over the opposition to be "trivial". When you pull that kind of crap, you're just as bad as your opposite. It puts the scientists who do it on the same level as the fundies who rewrite Darwin and claim the upper hand just because they can spin words around for the ignorant.
Sorry, but no thanks. Just as much as religion, science must prove itself by its own merits, not by semantic trickery. I happen to believe that it can do just that. Apparently, there are some here who think it can't, and that it needs such shenanigans. Shame on you.