Is it really being biased when I take the side of science and human reason? I believe that science is our best way to collect the most accurate data available concerning our universe and reality. I don’t believe it is absolute truth because, as we all know, our body of scientific knowledge is always changing and evolving. But that adaptability allows us to make better predictions about the future and to better understand ourselves and the place we inhabit. “Believing” in science is not being biased, but ignoring it is.
While I don’t consider science to be absolute truth, I do believe its method and fields provide the best, most reliable information concerning our universe as opposed to philosophy or theology. I’d trust a doctor over shaman, or even a statistician over a psychic. Or, I could get off my slothful ass and listen to, and observe nature: eventually coming to the same conclusions as other scientists myself- despite however long that might take.
So when I say I believe in science, what I mean is I believe that the information gathered by empirical inquiry describes nature fairly fucking accurately. After all, Newton wasn’t really proven wrong- just incomplete. His equations work very well for most things we’d encounter and others have generally built upon that foundation. “Shoulders of giants,” you know.
Yes, I believe in evolution and climate change and I think that gay people should be able to get married. Science has shown me fossils, climate data, some of the biological basis for homosexuality and numerous examples of gay animals. With the ability of reason and intelligence to understand these truths how can I not think that?
Unlike this fucking guy.
Occasionally this fucking guy and others, creep on campus talking about Jesus and the Bible and the truth about dinosaurs. Alas, it’s not paleontology pamphlets they hand out. This fucking guy ignores, or can’t understand, fossils, geologic strata sampling, and basic reasoning principles.
First off, let’s think on our own and not have god dictate morals for a moment: when is something wrong? When something harms or is intended to harm seems like a fair standard. After all, if you aren’t hurting anyone and don’t intend to, why should I give a shit what you do? So two dudes doing it seems ok.
Second, this fucking guy is using the Bible as evidence. The Bible has a talking snake in it. A mother fucking talking snake. So how reliable could this “word of god” stuff really be? Or am I being biased by dismissing arguments based on talking snakes?
Thirdly, fucking fossils! Fossils, damn it! This fucking guy and his equally wrong cohorts should just stop saying stupid shit.
Granted, not every single detail in the long history of biology on Earth is known and they may never be. However, the principles within the Theory of Evolution: descent with modification by natural selection, survival of the most adaptable, etc are accurate. Patterns can be found in the bones and fossils of animals, in DNA, in observable generational mutations, etc and the evidence supports it. You can fucking see bacteria evolve a resistance to antibiotics, you can see birds evolve different beak sizes depending on long term weather patters. Evolution can literally be seen in species with such short generations.
Understanding DNA has lead to breakthroughs in understanding evolution, like how mutations can occur. That same understanding helps physicians diagnose and treat genetic diseases and other disorders.
In my opinion, based on the reasons above, this fucking guy’s opinion is wrong, his beliefs are wrong and his moral perspective is twisted.
~David T. Kukulkan~