<i>From a metaphysical standpoint, science is like any other religion in
that it is how some humans understand their reality. I'd argue it's the
best process humans have devised to date for objectively understanding
our reality, but I'd argue it is still flawed like many of humans'
different metaphysical theories. One of those flaws is a propensity for
dogmatic adherence to preconceived notions and a general disinclination
to consider other ideas. Many of our now celebrated scientists learned
this the hard way in their own times when they became proponents for
ideas radical to their contemporary science.</i>

As others have ably pointed out, science is not comparable to religion (as 
Tim is arguing with the idea that "science is like any other religion") in 
that it takes as its basic principle the amassing of empirical evidence 
and drawing of conclusions from that evidence. Most world religions 
stipulate no such demand for evidence, and conclusions are presented to 
believers as complete, revealed truths. Science does not rely 
on 'preconcieved notions' as much as it does on overwhelming bodies of 
accumulated and reproducible data and the conclusions that data points to.

Is science flawed? Certainly - it is a human endeavor, after all. The 
questions and projects scientists engage in are socially constructed, part 
of broader cultural frameworks. If this interests you, you may want to 
explore the work being done in the fascinating field of the history of 
science. Some resources to start with:

The History of Science Society:
http://www.hssonline.org/society/about/mf_about.html

Oxford Museum of the History of Science:
http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/

This field yields incredible insights and provokes important questions for 
museum researchers, exhibit designers, and program planners. When 
presenting scientific ideas, historical context is vital to visitor 
understanding. The Holocaust Museum, for instance, presents disturbing 
exhibits on how the methods of science were used and abuse to advance 
cruel and criminal social goals.

But despite the questions of subjectivity, flawed study design, using 
science as a means to an end, etc., the process of creating scientific 
knowledge as practiced academically and professionally is fundamentally a 
different one than the process of creating arguments in support of 
religious philosophy. Those engaged in the pursuit of science cannot 
logically engage arguments for intelligent design (as postulated by its 
proponets) because the arguments presented are simply not scientific 
arguments by any professionally accepted standard. Nor are scientific 
theories in any way a religious philosophy. Acceptance of Western science 
does not logically exclude a belief in creationism as simply defined; the 
two are not opposites. Trouble begins when they are treated as two 
competing viewpoints within a field, when in fact they are utterly 
different lines of thought. 

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).