Pim,
>It's somewhat insulting to hear you refer to real science as bening somewhat
"less >rational". A lot of what you mentioned is founded in good science.
Marxism, >freudianism are however not scientific. You seem to be confusing
science and >faith here once again. Scientists will be looking for scientific
answers, religious >people will be looking be relying on faith and common
sense to support their faith.
Bertvan: Insulting to whom? Are you personally insulted if someone doesn't
believe random mutation and natural selection are the main mechanisms of
macro evolution?
Not really.
Bertvan: All of the above once called themselves science .
Sociobiology and the rest still do, I believe (at least by some people).
You were accusing a lot of different groups here. Perhaps you should have been more careful in your argument?
Bertvam: All were the result of Materialism--the belief that the universe is the result of
an accident--without design, plan, meaning or purpose. Who gets to decide
which is "real science"? or "good science"? I suggest Materialists are also
looking for answers which support their faith in an accidental universe.
Most of them were the result of science a few of them the result of ideological beliefs. Real science is determined by its evidence, which is why I have a hard time accepting ID as such since it fails in so many areas.
My point was that you accused, without much evidence, large groups of people, of less than rational thought just because they do not believe your faith.