Chris
As it should be, because it IS. Peck should not be criticizing scientists
and science, but those darn facts. When I walk down the street and someone
hands me a pamphlet, I hardly EVER look at it and read, "Accept Einstein
Into Your Heart and be SAVED!"
> I thought this was the weakest part of the book and I wasn't even involved
> in the evolution/creation debate when I read the book in 1979. Then, as
now,
> I thought he was dead wrong. There are just too many scientists who are
> religionists of one kind or another to say that science is thowing babies
or
> bathwater anywhere. Someone should take Peck to task for ignoring nuclear
> physics in his study of psychology. If he protests that nuclear physics
has
> nothing at all to do with pysychology, so what! He's just showing his
bias!
Chris
Science can be a religion in the sense that people can try to hold
"scientific" views on faith, and be dogmatic about them. But I think it
worth mentioning that science itself cannot be a religion. It is a body of
knowledge and an empirical method for discovering and validating that
knowledge and more empirical knowledge.
Saying that science can be a religion is like saying that mathematics can be
a religion. At best, it's misleading. Oftentimes, this kind of claim is much
worse; it is often dishonest. It is often an attempt to make religion seem
better by making science seem worse.