Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: cuban leaf
The second problem with Dawkin's statement is that it's not true. Not remotely.

An actual scientist wouldn't try to pretend that 'science will one day prove or observe something' which isn't currently proven or observed.

Dawkins isn't acting as a scientist when he claims this stuff, but as a polemicist.

14 posted on 06/14/2012 7:43:27 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: agere_contra
The second problem with Dawkin's statement is that it's not true. Not remotely. An actual scientist wouldn't try to pretend that 'science will one day prove or observe something' which isn't currently proven or observed. Dawkins isn't acting as a scientist when he claims this stuff, but as a polemicist.
It appears to be Krauss' statement, not Dawkin's, but your point still holds. Setting aside experimental evidence, I haven't even heard of a scientific hypothesis put forward of something coming from truly nothing. His "nothing" is not really nothing, although his argument may be.
18 posted on 06/14/2012 8:02:34 AM PDT by rightwingcrazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: agere_contra
I believe you are referring to Krauss, not Dawkins. Nonetheless, you have mispresprented the statement in question. That said, science commonly make predictions about potential future outcomes - that's the whole point...
19 posted on 06/14/2012 8:08:47 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson