[ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)

[Howard]

I am deeply troubled by the forceful insistence of some conservative friends that
God created the earth in 7 revolutions of the earth. It crowds out attention to traditional values.

If we but accept the possibility that time is an aspect of God that is beyond our understanding,
like the incomprehendably complex chemical reactions in healing, then we can keep our attention on restoration of traditional values. 

What does it matter if human beings took millions of years instead of thousands 
to reach where we are now, compared with promoting the Ten Commandments?

For example, the traditional value, "Thou shall not steal." 
Thomas Jefferson wrote John Taylor in 1816,
"Funding - to be paid by posterity - is swindling."

Most conflict of Christians with science disappears and morality remains top issue,
when we accept human incapacity to comprehend the extent of God's "Day",

Howard Long MD MPH family doctor and epidemiologist

On Oct 5, 2011, at 8:40 AM, "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> Steven Dapra takes some time to attack me. 
> But talking about creationism, I believe that Steven Dapra is a Creationist. Is that right, Steven?
> And dont knock Sternglass. His work is broadly correct. 
> Chris
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Harrison, Tony
> Sent: Wed 05/10/2011 15:02
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)
> 
> Interesting blog here:
> 
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/2011/10/04/drawing-the-line-between-science-and-pseudo-science/
> 
> The example given is the debate between evolution and "creation science" but the arguments apply just as much to anti- (or pro-) nuke opinions.  Take a moment to think about what sort of evidence it would take to convince you that your beliefs are false, and then see if such evidence exists.
> 
> Busby's citation of Sternglass et alia is laughable, but so are some of the pro-hormesis papers cited here over the years.  Both just show that the peer-review process is far from perfect.  Too many propagandists out there, and not enough scientists.
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu