I suppose the more accurate phrase would be "Why isn't everyone still of the religion that their descendants passed on to them?". A large portion of the world is either Christian or Muslim or otherwise has beliefs that require the Jewish god, as were their parents, so it seemed like an appropriate shorthand.
Some people are taught a crazy idea by their parents, but they later decide to believe a different crazy idea instead. What is so hard to understand about that?
You're making a pretty grand claim there. I think that, once again you need some evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you're shit-talking.
Fair enough. Elaboration to come as time permits.
The start of my elaboration. Elaboration on my elaboration as time permits!
The process in general is described in Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a very interesting book. There is an outline of the book available here.
An example:
The theory of continental drift was first seriously pushed in the 1920s, and had been around in one form or another for many years previous. However, it was not successfully incorporated into modern geology until the 1960s. Part of the reason was due to resistance from noted leaders in the field at the time. Here is an example that involves one Charles Schuchert.
Mr. Schuchert was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Chair of the Yale Geology Department from 1909 to 1921, President of the Geologial Society of America in 1922, vice-president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1927, and at the time of these debates was one of the generally accepted leaders in his field of historical geology.
This quote is taken from page 178 of The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science, an interesting book by Naomi Oreskes. Portions are available via Google Books here.
Charles Schuchert rejected continental drift because he interpreted it to be incompatible with uniformitarianism. However, he did not reject it because he could not see drift taking place, as might be supposed. Uniformitarianism has meant many things to many people, and to Charles Schuchert in the late 1920s, it meant - rightly or wrongly - an essentially steady-state earth, whose details were forever changing but whose large-scale patterns and relationships remained the same. And this seemed to him to deny the possibility of major changes in the configuration of the continents. Moreover - and perhaps more importantly - for Schuchert, as for most historical geologists, uniformitarianism was a form of scientific practice, a means of doing historical geology. It was, in fact, the primary means of doing historical geology. For Schuchert, abandoning uniformitarianism was nearly tantamount to abandoning historical geology altogether. Not surprisingly, he declined to do this. Like William Bowie, Charles Schuchert settled on a theoretical position that preserved his scientific practice.
I suppose the more accurate phrase would be "Why isn't everyone still of the religion that their descendants passed on to them?". A large portion of the world is either Christian or Muslim or otherwise has beliefs that require the Jewish god, as were their parents, so it seemed like an appropriate shorthand.
Some people are taught a crazy idea by their parents, but they later decide to believe a different crazy idea instead. What is so hard to understand about that?
My point was that the picture was misleading. It has no boxes for this kind of thing on the religion side, nor for the boxes that would be needed to explain Protestantism and reform schisms. On the science side, there are no boxes for political bickering, financial pressures, or the effect of social bias.
My point was that the picture was misleading. It has no boxes for this kind of thing on the religion side, nor for the boxes that would be needed to explain Protestantism and reform schisms. On the science side, there are no boxes for political bickering, financial pressures, or the effect of social bias.
Dude, it was a comic. A joke based upon the simplified processes of each side.
My point was that the picture was misleading. It has no boxes for this kind of thing on the religion side, nor for the boxes that would be needed to explain Protestantism and reform schisms. On the science side, there are no boxes for political bickering, financial pressures, or the effect of social bias.
Dude, it was a comic. A joke based upon the simplified processes of each side.
No worries. As long as people realize this, there's no problem. That said, it wasn't a very funny joke. Steve's on the other hand, now that was funny.
No worries. As long as people realize this, there's no problem.
Would you agree though that it does hold the basic element of truth behind each side? I mean, it doesn't have to be exactly accurate detailed about everything single step to give the basic framework of each side.
The theory of continental drift was first seriously pushed in the 1920s, and had been around in one form or another for many years previous. However, it was not successfully incorporated into modern geology until the 1960s. Part of the reason was due to resistance from noted leaders in the field at the time. Here is an example that involves one Charles Schuchert.
This would fall under changing the current theory with contradicting evidence. It's not a slow process because scientists always question each others statements and it takes time to guarantee the validity of claims. I suppose this is the "politics" you talk about, but I wouldn't quite define it as politics. The important thing to remember from your story is that in the end, the theory was changed. Science was advanced and theories were updated. Sometimes the process is easy and others times it's quite difficult.
My point was that the picture was misleading. It has no boxes for this kind of thing on the religion side, nor for the boxes that would be needed to explain Protestantism and reform schisms. On the science side, there are no boxes for political bickering, financial pressures, or the effect of social bias.
As for the religion side, the important thing to remember is that no matter what sect of Christianity you are, you still believe a couple basic beliefs.
You believe Jesus died for your sins and that he was the son of God.
The Bible is the word of God.
It doesn't matter if you are Protestant or Catholic, you still believe these main issues. The majority of the splits in the Christian faith have to do with politics (look at the Church of England, it was formed because of King Henry VIII's personal goals and ideas, not with any argument with the Catholic church over religious issues).
The main idea is that science is advanced through empirical observation and evidence which constantly updates itself with new ideas based upon said observations while Religion does not change it's beliefs, even in the face of contradicting evidence.
My point was that the picture was misleading. It has no boxes for this kind of thing on the religion side, nor for the boxes that would be needed to explain Protestantism and reform schisms. On the science side, there are no boxes for political bickering, financial pressures, or the effect of social bias.
Dude, it was a comic. A joke based upon the simplified processes of each side.
No worries. As long as people realize this, there's no problem. That said, it wasn't a very funny joke. Steve's on the other hand, now that was funny.
I got enough troubles, please don't try and pull me back in on this one!
That said, it wasn't a very funny joke. Steve's on the other hand, now that was funny.
Well, it's based upon a strawman argument. The Big Bang does not say that the universe came from nothing, to the best of my knowledge. Rather that because we have observed a redshift with the galaxies, we know that they are moving away. Thus because the universe is expanding, we can postulate that it originated from a hotter and more condensed origin.
No worries. As long as people realize this, there's no problem. That said, it wasn't a very funny joke. Steve's on the other hand, now that was funny.
I got enough troubles, please don't try and pull me back in on this one!
No call for reinforcements, just a compliment. It's too bad they don't allow hotlinking. I dug the whole "That exploded." bit on the end. The balance made it funny.
No worries. As long as people realize this, there's no problem.
Would you agree though that it does hold the basic element of truth behind each side?
Not especially. If it did, you'd combine the two flowcharts into one and have it stand for both organized religion and science.
The theory of continental drift was first seriously pushed in the 1920s, and had been around in one form or another for many years previous. However, it was not successfully incorporated into modern geology until the 1960s. Part of the reason was due to resistance from noted leaders in the field at the time. Here is an example that involves one Charles Schuchert.
This would fall under changing the current theory with contradicting evidence. It's not a slow process because scientists always question each others statements and it takes time to guarantee the validity of claims. I suppose this is the "politics" you talk about, but I wouldn't quite define it as politics. The important thing to remember from your story is that in the end, the theory was changed. Science was advanced and theories were updated. Sometimes the process is easy and others times it's quite difficult.
Fair enough. I suppose I thought that using one box labeled "Revolution!" for a bloated process that in real life takes many boxes and has many pitfalls to be a misleading simplification that implies that things are more streamlined than they really are, and that things don't fall through the cracks. Additionally, the politics I talk about are genuine honest-to-goodness politics, not debate over the merits of the data.
My point was that the picture was misleading. It has no boxes for this kind of thing on the religion side, nor for the boxes that would be needed to explain Protestantism and reform schisms. On the science side, there are no boxes for political bickering, financial pressures, or the effect of social bias.
As for the religion side, the important thing to remember is that no matter what sect of Christianity you are, you still believe a couple basic beliefs.
You believe Jesus died for your sins and that he was the son of God.
The Bible is the word of God.
It doesn't matter if you are Protestant or Catholic, you still believe these main issues. The majority of the splits in the Christian faith have to do with politics (look at the Church of England, it was formed because of King Henry VIII's personal goals and ideas, not with any argument with the Catholic church over religious issues).
Your claim requires sources. Besides, the flowchart had little Jewish stars and Muslim crescents floating around it too.
The main idea is that science is advanced through empirical observation and evidence which constantly updates itself with new ideas based upon said observations while Religion does not change it's beliefs, even in the face of contradicting evidence.
I believe that this separation is incorrect. I believe that scientists and the religious do both these things.
Your claim requires sources. Besides, the flowchart had little Jewish stars and Muslic crescents floating around it too.
What sources do you need? Those two things are what's required to be a Christian, there is no other requirement. I just used Christianity as an example because it's the most relevant in America and the Western world.
I believe that this separation is incorrect. I believe that scientists and the religious do both these things.
Well, I suppose that some religious claims do get changed when they are obviously shown false. Perhaps it's only a matter of time until we prove them all completely false. I should probably read up on the Qur' an if I wanted to be more precise when it comes to Islam, maybe read some of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's works.
Just for reference, what religion do you ascribe to?
The theory of continental drift was first seriously pushed in the 1920s, and had been around in one form or another for many years previous. However, it was not successfully incorporated into modern geology until the 1960s. Part of the reason was due to resistance from noted leaders in the field at the time. Here is an example that involves one Charles Schuchert.
This would fall under changing the current theory with contradicting evidence. It's not a slow process because scientists always question each others statements and it takes time to guarantee the validity of claims. I suppose this is the "politics" you talk about, but I wouldn't quite define it as politics. The important thing to remember from your story is that in the end, the theory was changed. Science was advanced and theories were updated. Sometimes the process is easy and others times it's quite difficult.
This is not a proof of what you said. You said:
In practice science involves endless academic bickering and political intrigue, and has more to do with who has tenure, who's providing the grant money, and who will lose face if their theory is overturned rather than with what is most likely to be accurate.
Your example just doesn't bear out your statement. This wasn't politics. This wasn't academic bickering. Just because science is willing to change does not mean that it must instantly change every time a new idea comes up. The new idea has to be tested. Note that, as Andrew points out, the the idea, after being tested, was accepted. If this is all you have to back up your statement, your statement fails.
In practice science involves endless academic bickering and political intrigue, and has more to do with who has tenure, who's providing the grant money, and who will lose face if their theory is overturned rather than with what is most likely to be accurate.
Your example just doesn't bear out your statement. This wasn't politics. This wasn't academic bickering. Just because science is willing to change does not mean that it must instantly change every time a new idea comes up. The new idea has to betested. Note that, as Andrew points out, the the idea, after being tested, was accepted. If this is all you have to back up your statement, your statement fails.
Emphasis added. Additional elaboration and examples to come as time permits.
Charles Schuchert rejected continental drift because he interpreted it to be incompatible with uniformitarianism. However, he did not reject it because he could not see drift taking place, as might be supposed. Uniformitarianism has meant many things to many people, and to Charles Schuchert in the late 1920s, it meant - rightly or wrongly - an essentially steady-state earth, whose details were forever changing but whose large-scale patterns and relationships remained the same. And this seemed to him to deny the possibility of major changes in the configuration of the continents. Moreover - and perhaps more importantly - for Schuchert, as for most historical geologists, uniformitarianism was a form of scientific practice, a means of doing historical geology. It was, in fact, the primary means of doing historical geology. For Schuchert, abandoning uniformitarianism was nearly tantamount to abandoning historical geology altogether. Not surprisingly, he declined to do this. Like William Bowie, Charles Schuchert settled on a theoretical position that preserved his scientific practice.
You can add all the emphasis you want. That doesn't change the fact that what you are tallking about is not politics or academic bickering. All ideas are tested. That's like the disconnect the ID people have. Just because they say they have a different idea, that doesn't mean that their idea is entitled to academic acceptance. It has to be tested. The thing about ID is that it doesn't make any predictions that can be tested.
Finally, taking in the light most favorable to your position one guy did not accept the new idea after it gained general acceptance. One. guy. That's hardly an indictment of the scientific method. That's just the problem of that one guy.
You can add all the emphasis you want. That doesn't change the fact that what you are tallking about is not politics or academic bickering. All ideas are tested. That's like the disconnect the ID people have. Just because they say they have a different idea, that doesn't mean that their idea is entitled to academic acceptance. It has to be tested. The thing about ID is that it doesn't make any predictions thatcanbe tested.
Finally, taking in the light most favorable to your positionone guydid not accept the new idea after it gained general acceptance. One. guy. That's hardly an indictment of the scientific method. That's just the problem of that one guy.
This one guy was an influential leader in his field, and one who would have lost quite a bit of face and working usefulness through accepting the new idea. Additionally, it was not one guy who rejected the idea after it gained general acceptance. The debates that he was a part of happened in the 1920s. Continental drift was finally accepted into the canon 40 years later, after many of the people who were involved in the early debates were already dead. As noted, one example is not sufficient to prove a point. Further examples and elaboration to come as time permits.
Listen: they didn't have the evidence sufficient to back up the drift theory in the 20s. But you know what? Even if I spot you this whole point (and don't think I'm doing that - I'm just not sure I have the stomache today to hear you come back again and again saying basically the same shit since you don't seem to have the ability to actually be convinced of anything), it doesn't prove your argument. It's one instance. Furthermore, it's one instance in a pretty "soft" science. Your statement was a general statement about the whole method. Big difference.
The next time you put a happy face in a response to me, I'll crawl through the interweb and slap you. Stop it. That's about the worst form of patronization there is in a serious discussion.
Listen: they didn't have the evidence sufficient to back up the drift theory in the 20s.
They did have the evidence, the problem was on the theory side. A Wikipedia quote from the continental drift article that I think sums up the situation nicely:
One of the main problems with Wegener's theory was that he believed that the continents "plowed" through the rocks of the ocean basins. Most geologists did not believe that this could be possible. In fact, the biggest objection to Wegener was that he did not have an acceptable theory of the forces that caused the continents to drift. He also ignored counter-arguments and evidence contrary to his theory and seemed too willing to interpret ambiguous evidence as being favorable to his theory. For their part, the geologists ignored Wegener's copious body of evidence, allowing their adherence to a theory to override the actual data, when the scientific method would seem to demand the reverse approach.
Wegener was just as bad in attempting to push continental drift as the theory that takes in the conflicting facts as the established scientists were at attempting to resist the evidence that contradicted their current theories. Yet, they were all scientists... I've been told that this sort of dogmatic approach only happens among the religious.
But you know what? EvenifI spot you this whole point (and don't think I'm doing that - I'm just not sure I have the stomache today to hear you come back again and again saying basically the same shit since you don't seem to have the ability to actually be convinced of anything), it doesn't prove your argument. It's one instance. Furthermore, it's one instance in a pretty "soft" science. Your statement was a general statement about the whole method. Big difference.
No true Scientist?
The next time you put a happy face in a response to me, I'll crawl through the interweb and slap you. Stop it. That's about the worst form of patronization there is in a serious discussion.
I assumed it was more friendly than serious. My apologies.
Listen: they didn't have the evidence sufficient to back up the drift theory in the 20s.
They did have the evidence, the problem was on the theory side. A Wikipedia quote from the continental drift article that I think sums up the situation nicely:
One of the main problems with Wegener's theory was that he believed that the continents "plowed" through the rocks of the ocean basins. Most geologists did not believe that this could be possible. In fact, the biggest objection to Wegener was that he did not have an acceptable theory of the forces that caused the continents to drift. He also ignored counter-arguments and evidence contrary to his theory and seemed too willing to interpret ambiguous evidence as being favorable to his theory. For their part, the geologists ignored Wegener's copious body of evidence, allowing their adherence to a theory to override the actual data, when the scientific method would seem to demand the reverse approach.
Read what you posted. Wegener ignored evidence contrary to his theory and seemed too willing to interpret ambiguous evidence as being favorable to his theory. Read one paragraph above where you cut your quote:
Before geophysical evidence started accumulating after World War II, the idea of continental drift caused sharp disagreement among geologists.
After. World. War. II. As I said, they didn't have the evidence in the 20s.
But you know what? EvenifI spot you this whole point (and don't think I'm doing that - I'm just not sure I have the stomache today to hear you come back again and again saying basically the same shit since you don't seem to have the ability to actually be convinced of anything), it doesn't prove your argument. It's one instance. Furthermore, it's one instance in a pretty "soft" science. Your statement was a general statement about the whole method. Big difference.
No true Scientist?
What do you mean by this? What sounds like a "No true Scotsman"?
Read what you posted. Wegener ignored evidence contrary to his theory and seemed too willing to interpret ambiguous evidence as being favorable to his theory.
He did. Would you say then that it is incorrect to claim that scientists don't do that sort of thing?
Read one paragraph above where you cut your quote:
Before geophysical evidence started accumulating after World War II, the idea of continental drift caused sharp disagreement among geologists.
After. World. War. II. As I said, they didn't have the evidence in the 20s.
A reasonable amount of evidence existed. Sources and elaboration as time permits.
But you know what? EvenifI spot you this whole point (and don't think I'm doing that - I'm just not sure I have the stomache today to hear you come back again and again saying basically the same shit since you don't seem to have the ability to actually be convinced of anything), it doesn't prove your argument. It's one instance.
What were you trying to convince me of? I made an assertion, and you countered with a request for sources.
Furthermore, it's one instance in a pretty "soft" science. Your statement was a general statement about the whole method. Big difference.
This is indeed only one example. Further examples as time permits. What would you consider a reasonable number to reinforce my assertion?
No true Scientist?
What do you mean by this? What sounds like a "No true Scotsman"?
I got the impression that by calling geology a "soft" science, you meant that it did not hold to appropriate standards of scientific rigour, and couldn't be considered reflective of the scientific community as a whole.
To my understanding, this is the One True Scotsman in a nutshell. Am I incorrect in this understanding?
Read what you posted. Wegener ignored evidence contrary to his theory and seemed too willing to interpret ambiguous evidence as being favorable to his theory.
He did. Would you say then that it is incorrect to claim that scientists don't do that sort of thing?
You're wanting to have it both ways here. First you say the establishment won't accept evidence. Then when your boy won't accept evidence, you say, "See, they don't accept evidence!" Fail.
Furthermore, it's one instance in a pretty "soft" science. Your statement was a general statement about the whole method. Big difference.
This is indeed only one example. Further examples as time permits. What would you consider a reasonable number to reinforce my assertion?
You can't prove it by any number of examples. It's a general statement. In order to prove it, you'd have to prove that the method breaks down because of "politics" and "academic bickering" in general.
No true Scientist?
What do you mean by this? What sounds like a "No true Scotsman"?
I got the impression that by calling geology a "soft" science, you meant that it did not hold to appropriate standards of scientific rigour, and couldn't be considered reflective of the scientific community as a whole.
To my understanding, this is the One True Scotsman in a nutshell. Am I incorrect in this understanding?
Yes. Yes, you are incorrect. Geologists can argue longer and take longer to prove and accept a new theory because it's more difficult for them to experiment. It has nothing to do with their rigor.
Read what you posted. Wegener ignored evidence contrary to his theory and seemed too willing to interpret ambiguous evidence as being favorable to his theory.
He did. Would you say then that it is incorrect to claim that scientists don't do that sort of thing?
You're wanting to have it both ways here. First you say the establishment won't accept evidence. Then when your boy won't accept evidence, you say, "See, they don't accept evidence!" Fail.
I don't see how it is incompatable with my original claim. A scientist pushing a new theory for ulterior motives is just as related as one rejecting a new theory for ulterior motives. The common theme is the importance of ulterior motives in the decision-making over considerations of accuracy or potential truthfulness.
No true Scientist?
What do you mean by this? What sounds like a "No true Scotsman"?
I got the impression that by calling geology a "soft" science, you meant that it did not hold to appropriate standards of scientific rigour, and couldn't be considered reflective of the scientific community as a whole.
To my understanding, this is the One True Scotsman in a nutshell. Am I incorrect in this understanding?
Yes. Yes, you are incorrect. Geologists can argue longer and take longer to prove and accept a new theory because it's more difficult for them to experiment. It has nothing to do with their rigor.
Are you saying that the reason that it took 40 years for continental drift to work its way through the system is because geologists work very slowly?
This is indeed only one example. Further examples as time permits. What would you consider a reasonable number to reinforce my assertion?
You can't prove it by any number of examples. It's a general statement. In order to prove it, you'd have to prove that the method breaks down because of "politics" and "academic bickering" in general.
That is the rub, isn't it? To show that there is any genuine loss from this method of doing things, rather than delays that always correct themselves with time, I'd have to show a truth that the scientific community rejected and that the scientific community has not accepted since then, nor would ever accept. This is a tall task, as one can always assume that somewhere along the line someone will die and a new set of scientists will doubt the orthodoxy passed on to them, whether for a desire for truth or because of ulterior motives that happen to require it. I suppose that's why I said reinforce my assertion rather than prove it.
Really my main point in this whole debacle (achieved to the degree that the original cartoon was labeled as a joke) was to point out that the idea of science as a straight line progression involving scientists that are not swayed by things other than evidence is simply not so, and that to suggest that it is superior to religion for this reason is a mistake. People shouldn't put science on the pedestal that religion once rested upon, nor should they attempt to make it perform in ways it is not suited for. It is not a beacon of truth, it is simply a set of tools operated by imperfect human beings to imperfect ends. Just as Darwinism should not lead to Social Darwinism, Science should not lead to Scientism.
Darwinism does exist as a term, which refers primarily to Darwin's concept of "evolution by natural selection". It is aging now, since modern evolutionary theory isn't limited only to what Darwin came up with.
Are you claiming that Darwinism is an imaginary word?
In what usage are you using the term "Darwinism"?
The noun coined in 1864 described by Merriam-Webster like so:
Main Entry: Dar·win·ism Pronunciation: \ˈdär-wə-ˌni-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1864 1 : a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors — compare EVOLUTION
Darwinism was used as the inspiration for the movement known as Social Darwinism. This was not a good thing, in my opinion.
Darwinism does exist as a term, which refers primarily to Darwin's concept of "evolution by natural selection". It is aging now, since modern evolutionary theory isn't limited only to what Darwin came up with.
Agreed, but most usage of the term today is used by Creationist and ID proponents who use it pejoratively to refer to Evolution in general. They use it in a sense that Evolution is only believed by a core group of scientists who are often cast in the negative "atheistic light." Here is an example of this idea behind the term. I say the word doesn't exist because this negative view is intellectually corrupt and illegitimate.
It seemed to me that this was the meaning that jcc was aiming for, not the evolution by purely natural selection usage. Hence, why I asked him what he meant by the usage of the word.
Comments
The process in general is described in Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a very interesting book. There is an outline of the book available here.
An example:
The theory of continental drift was first seriously pushed in the 1920s, and had been around in one form or another for many years previous. However, it was not successfully incorporated into modern geology until the 1960s. Part of the reason was due to resistance from noted leaders in the field at the time. Here is an example that involves one Charles Schuchert.
Mr. Schuchert was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Chair of the Yale Geology Department from 1909 to 1921, President of the Geologial Society of America in 1922, vice-president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1927, and at the time of these debates was one of the generally accepted leaders in his field of historical geology.
This quote is taken from page 178 of The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science, an interesting book by Naomi Oreskes. Portions are available via Google Books here.
- You believe Jesus died for your sins and that he was the son of God.
- The Bible is the word of God.
It doesn't matter if you are Protestant or Catholic, you still believe these main issues. The majority of the splits in the Christian faith have to do with politics (look at the Church of England, it was formed because of King Henry VIII's personal goals and ideas, not with any argument with the Catholic church over religious issues).The main idea is that science is advanced through empirical observation and evidence which constantly updates itself with new ideas based upon said observations while Religion does not change it's beliefs, even in the face of contradicting evidence.
Just for reference, what religion do you ascribe to?
Finally, taking in the light most favorable to your position one guy did not accept the new idea after it gained general acceptance. One. guy. That's hardly an indictment of the scientific method. That's just the problem of that one guy.
The next time you put a happy face in a response to me, I'll crawl through the interweb and slap you. Stop it. That's about the worst form of patronization there is in a serious discussion.
What do you mean by this? What sounds like a "No true Scotsman"?
What were you trying to convince me of? I made an assertion, and you countered with a request for sources. This is indeed only one example. Further examples as time permits. What would you consider a reasonable number to reinforce my assertion? I got the impression that by calling geology a "soft" science, you meant that it did not hold to appropriate standards of scientific rigour, and couldn't be considered reflective of the scientific community as a whole.
To my understanding, this is the One True Scotsman in a nutshell. Am I incorrect in this understanding?
Really my main point in this whole debacle (achieved to the degree that the original cartoon was labeled as a joke) was to point out that the idea of science as a straight line progression involving scientists that are not swayed by things other than evidence is simply not so, and that to suggest that it is superior to religion for this reason is a mistake. People shouldn't put science on the pedestal that religion once rested upon, nor should they attempt to make it perform in ways it is not suited for. It is not a beacon of truth, it is simply a set of tools operated by imperfect human beings to imperfect ends. Just as Darwinism should not lead to Social Darwinism, Science should not lead to Scientism.
It seemed to me that this was the meaning that jcc was aiming for, not the evolution by purely natural selection usage. Hence, why I asked him what he meant by the usage of the word.