Science Is Not Enough and Science Is Incomplete

********************************************

By the Hammer of Thor, By the Rings of Saturn

This great photo is from the Daily Mail.

This is their caption: “Small, battered Epimetheus before Saturn's A and F rings, and and smog-enshrouded Titan beyond. The colours here are artificial in order to approximate the scene as it might appear to human eyes.” Click on picture to see full size version.

God and Science

ht/Noblesse Oblige

We Will Keep Asking the Question Until You Give the Approved Answer

"Science has long held that homosexuality is biological." Those 'scientists' don't know how or why but they are now PC enough to get grants.

You're Such A Cassandra

Barack Obama's new science advisor is not so much a scientist as a Cassandra. The New York Times says:
"Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor? Apparently not, judging by reports from DotEarth and ScienceInsider that Barack Obama will name John P. Holdren as his science advisor on Saturday.
Dr. Holdren, now a physicist at Harvard, was one of the experts in natural resources whom Paul Ehrlich enlisted in his famous bet against the economist Julian Simon during the “energy crisis” of the 1980s. Dr. Simon, who disagreed with environmentalists’ predictions of a new “age of scarcity” of natural resources, offered to bet that any natural resource would be cheaper at any date in the future. Dr. Ehrlich accepted the challenge and asked Dr. Holdren, then the co-director of the graduate program in energy and
resources at the University of California, Berkeley, and another Berkeley professor, John Harte, for help in choosing which resources would become scarce.
In 1980 Dr. Holdren helped select five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — and joined Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Harte in betting $1,000 that those metals would be more expensive ten years later. They turned out to be wrong on all five metals, and had to pay up when the bet came due in 1990.
. . . . . . . . ..
Dr. Holdren is certainly entitled to his views, but what concerns me is his tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions. Even if most climate scientists agree on the anthropogenic causes of global warming, that doesn’t imply that the best way to deal with the problem is through drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions. There are other ways to cope, and there’s no “scientific consensus” on which path looks best."

OpenMarket.org says,
"Although touted as a member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Holdren was admitted through a back door called the “temporary nominating group”, a process which appears designed and has certainly been exercised to gain entry for large numbers of environmental alarmists who, it is fair to presume from this exception, would not gain election through the normal channel.
. . . . . . . .
The vocal Holdren predicted in the mid-1980s that climate-related catastrophes might kill as many as one billion people before the year 2020 but now brushes off inquiries about such failed catastrophism while continuing to sound a similar alarm. He is a longtime collaborator with none other than failed prognosticator of doom Paul Ehrlich, with whom he collaborated to hold a “Cassandra Conference” in 1988 (Cassandra is the lass from Greek mythology whose prophecies were always true and always ignored).
As I note in Red Hot Lies, Holdren’s name also pops up in various, largely successful efforts to elevate taxpayer funding of the global warming industry. Finally, note that Holdren’s recent record includes being enlisted by Scientific American in its clumsy effort to smear and otherwise discredit Bjørn Lomborg."

He is not just a Cassandra but a backdoor Cassandra.
Nothing new here: even though Democrats frequently invoke the name of "science." Few of them actually know what it is and how it works.

Mythopoeic Thought-- part III-- evolution and Moses

That new chick on the View said she didn't believe in evolution because it isn't in the Bible. I bet she believes in credit cards and Prada bags. But seriously, folks, maybe she's expecting more of the Bible than the Bible meant to be. If the Bible had talked about SUVs, microwaves and speed dating what would have been the point. The original readers would have been confused and less likely to pass it along to their kids. Like so many other books the Bible spoke in the language of those to first hear it and spoke to their problems. Science was not a part of their world. Even at the time of the most recently written parts there were somewhat advanced science and mathematics available in the Roman world. But it would be more accurate to say that their so called scientific writings were about the subjects that are presently within the scope of science. But they would not completely meet a modern definition of science since the scientific method was yet to be codified.But there is a more important way in which these ancient writings differed from modern scientific writing. The ancients did not have such a category as science. It was just another branch of philosophy. Aristotle covered these topics in his book entitled, Physics. And the people from the times of Genesis and Exodus, etc., would not have recognized something as separate from religion as philosophy. The Genesis account of creation put the creation in the context of their world while preserving the unities they lived in. They lived in seven day weeks and rested from work on the seventh and God created in seven days and rested on the seventh. Men were in charge of women and many animals and this was the order and meaning in which God had created. No need for a man to ever feel guilt about killing an animal since this was the natural order of things.Evolution is a scientific theory. Ancient man had no more than the beginnings of science. So it would have been as strange as a reference to Prada bags to reference science.And the New Testament was not written in order to place mankind within the order of primates. It was written to explain how man could better relate to God and the world in whch he lived.

Mythopoeic Thought

Ancient men related to the world differently than moderns. They tended to the subjective. As explanations of the world mythic stories of gods, heros and talking dogs were more than sufficient. This was because the myths filled the world with the stuff of human personality which was all that ancient men needed or sought.The ancients lived in a much more compact universe. Religion, philosophy, sociology and all science were one. Men created myths, they shared them and used these myths to guide themselves and their children. And as far as we know, most all of them believed these myths.If you enjoy history and literature, like I do, an understanding of mythopoeic thought helps you make more sense of the ancient writers. I once saw an exhibition of household items from ancient Greece and Rome. Almost all of these items were decorated with pictures of gods and heroes. They saw gods throughout nature and replicated this indoors. Livy narrates the story of Hannibal's conflict with Rome. But from time to time Livy will pause Hannibal's story to relate that at about this time a five legged goat was born in some part of Italy or maybe that a child is born with a full set of teeth. Such things spoke loudly to the Romans but the priestly books that explained the meaning of these prodigies have been lost. I would see such events as unusual and look to biology and genetics for explanations. The Romans felt these events told them something about the world and would go the priestly books for explanations.This a brief introduction to mythopoeic thought. I plan to write in future posts about how all of this applies to the contemporary world.