here's a fascinating commentary link about a Nature article... and about the eminent scientists who are outraged by it...
And my thoughts:
The Nature magazine seems to be one of the premiere/avantgarde science magazines, as evidenced by the fascinating phenomena that they seem to be somewhat influenced by postmodernism, while still trying to retain their modernist materialist scientific outlook. They are trying desperately to remain "mainstream scientific" in the naturalistic sense, without offending their increasingly postmodern constituency which believes that science does not have all the answers and that in fact nobody has ANY absolute answers. Thus Nature recommends "reconciling" science and belief, by relegating belief to "myth" status. Or perhaps "pleasant myth" or "traditional myth" or "cultural myth" status, if that floats your boat better.
But there are still some die-hard modernists (read the above article), who will not tolerate this mushiness. I admire them, in a way. Even though they come to the wrong conclusions, they are seeking the perfect goal - Truth. They don't tolerate this "religious truth and scientific truth don't have to mesh" platitude. "They have zeal, but not according to knowledge."
Recent Comments