NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this. One can be religious and still be a scientist doing wonderful work. Francis Collins is an example that often comes up. He was the head of the Human Genome Project and is in fact Christopher Hitchens' oncologist. Those two do not agree on religion, but it doesn't hurt the brilliant work Collins does. Although Collins is religious, he does not ignore the scientific facts behind evolution or other sciences.

My comment in that thread was specific to the guest. He seems to be calling himself a scientist, but he says that academic science is wrong because it doesn't jive with what he's trying to prove.

Here's what Issac Newton (a religious man) had to say on it, paraphrased by Wikipeda: A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.

<blockquote data-quote="Angel of Ioren" data-source="post: 115282" data-attributes="member: 1395">Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this. One can be religious and still be a scientist doing wonderful work. Francis Collins is an example that often comes up. He was the head of the Human Genome Project and is in fact Christopher Hitchens&#039; oncologist. Those two do not agree on religion, but it doesn&#039;t hurt the brilliant work Collins does. Although Collins is religious, he does not ignore the scientific facts behind evolution or other sciences.My comment in that thread was specific to the guest. He seems to be calling himself a scientist, but he says that academic science is wrong because it doesn&#039;t jive with what he&#039;s trying to prove. Here&#039;s what Issac Newton (a religious man) had to say on it, paraphrased by Wikipeda: A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System" target="_blank">systematic</a> activity to acquire <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge" target="_blank">knowledge</a>. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" target="_blank">scientific method</a>.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Angel of Ioren, post: 115282, member: 1395"] Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this. One can be religious and still be a scientist doing wonderful work. Francis Collins is an example that often comes up. He was the head of the Human Genome Project and is in fact Christopher Hitchens' oncologist. Those two do not agree on religion, but it doesn't hurt the brilliant work Collins does. Although Collins is religious, he does not ignore the scientific facts behind evolution or other sciences. My comment in that thread was specific to the guest. He seems to be calling himself a scientist, but he says that academic science is wrong because it doesn't jive with what he's trying to prove. Here's what Issac Newton (a religious man) had to say on it, paraphrased by Wikipeda: A [B]scientist[/B] in a broad sense is one engaging in a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System"]systematic[/URL] activity to acquire [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge"]knowledge[/URL]. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"]scientific method[/URL]. [/QUOTE]

Verification