clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You're using it wrong. Science isn't technology. Science isn't terminology.
>> Science isn't "what the nazis said it was."
> 
> Science is a way of looking at the world.

Yes.

> It was taken by the Nazis - assuming their "race" to be the fittest - as a call
> to action they should go out and ensure survival of this fittest race.

That isn't science.  It's using some buzzwords from science to motivate 
people to a political end.  I mean, really.  "Darwin says that when an 
environment changes, individuals who the change affects negatively will 
leave fewer descendants. Therefore, we should invade Poland."  That just 
isn't science. Darwinism doesn't say "you should try to ensure the survival 
of the fittest." Indeed, the Nazis, by invading Poland, ensured that they 
changed the environment to one in which they could no longer survive, 
defeating their very purpose.

You can use *anything* as a justification. "Mother Teresa wanted to end 
suffering, therefore we should shoot sick babies." That doesn't mean 
Christianity encourages infanticide.  (You have to look elsewhere in 
Christianity to find that justification.)

> Just like christianity is a way of looking at the world.
> It was taken by the crusaders as a call to action that they should go out and
> free Jerusalem from the "heathen hordes".

And that's the difference between science and religion. Science says "this 
is what is."  Religion says "this is what you should do."  That *is* the 
difference, and that *is* why science isn't religion.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message