We try to present both sides here at Good Reason.
Here’s a recent scientific advance.
Scientists employing a gene therapy have provided partial vision to patients who were nearly blind from a condition known as Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) — a severe form of retinitis pigmentosa. Initial results from the clinical trial, which was funded in part by the Foundation Fighting Blindness, were published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.
All three patients, who had severely abnormal vision before entering the study, can now read several lines on an eye chart and are able to see better in dimly lit settings. One was also able to navigate better after the injection.
And on the other side, here’s movie star and absolute fool Ben Stein:
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
Read that again: science leads you to killing people.
At its simplest level, science is observing and keeping what works. The opposite approach is faith, which equates to not observing, and keeping something even if it doesn’t work. You’d think it would be difficult to defend something that doesn’t work, but here we are in the 21st century, and people like Ben Stein are still using their seemingly limitless capacity for selective observation in the service of keeping outdated and ineffective dogmas. Science, on the other hand, is making the blind to see and the lame to walk, which is more than any guru, priest, or prophet has ever done.
Beware anyone who demeans reason, logic, and science. I’ve heard many people do this. I’ve heard naturopaths scoff at the mention of the scientific method. I’ve seen church leaders dismiss ‘man’s reason’ as inferior to religious tenets. I’ve read creationists bad-mouthing the process of peer review. And now I see Stein denouncing science itself. They have to do this because reason, logic, and science don’t support their phony claims. When you see this, it is a sure sign that that person is promoting something that doesn’t deliver the goods.
2 May 2008 at 4:08 am
“I’ve read creationists bad-mouthing the process of peer review”
It’s funny to mentioned that, I was reading Shermer’s article on ‘Expelled’ the other day and he goes into the Sternberg affair which is what ‘Expelled’ revolves around.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part2