Front end loading (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, November 14, 2008, 15:04 (5640 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: "We know Chance exists, God is a wee bit more doubtful." - A great response, George, but not to my initial question, which was: "Shouldn't scientists remain objective and tell us what may have happened without insisting that they also know the force that made it happen?" What I object to is the use of expressions like "chance encounter" and "a series of unique chance events". It's a subversive way of using the supposed objectivity of science to push through a theory that has no scientific basis, i.e. that life originated by chance. I have no problem with someone's belief that this was so, but it should not be stated as if it were a fact, and that is what is implied by these subtle insertions. Imagine the howls of rage if a scientist said, "God made the amoeba engulf the bacterium", or "God used this method to create all plants, and 75m years later created the primitive land animals that followed." That, however, is just the religious equivalent of "chance" encounters, events etc. You and David are both scientists looking at the same sets of facts, and you draw different conclusions, as is clear to anyone following our discussions. But when a popular newspaper publishes a scientific article quoting a team of authoritative-sounding scientists, it's not so clear where science ends and faith begins.