Jaywill replies to me:
But, when I hear complaints like this, speghetti monters, unicorns, lepercons, for some reason they don't impress me too much. They come off as efforts to force absurdity upon a soberly and realistic, even historically founded rational belief , ie. that of God.
...And that IS the whole point of the comparison - to make our statements about FSM et al seem as ludicrous to you as your God appears to us rational folk. We really do find your God idea as realistic as the FSM is to you.
I agree that in the future knowledge is likely to encrease. But what is wrong with Jastrow speaking of his own contemporary time?
Only that he spoke from unsupported fact - i.e. opinion. nothing wrong with that we all have opinions but ultimately without empirical evidence for a viewpoint (and on this he had none for there is none - you'd have to have a time machine that could extend into future's infinity to hold that opinion on future progress). But just because he was a scientist doesn't make him an all-knowing person...as I said the logical fallacy of 'Argument from Authority'.
And your own statement that "No scientist should ever" speak in this or that way is kind of self refuting. I think you are doing the same thing. I think acording to your own view you should allow the possibility that some last piece of knowledge will be scientifically obtained so that science is finished and they can speak in such an absolute way.
This is nonsense! Are you seriously unaware that NO science is ever ‘finished’? Science always finds the 'best fit' and continually reviews and amends as appropriate. That’s why Newton's laws which were taught for nearly 300 years were overturned by Einstein's equations. How was this possible if Newton was 'proved' and 'finished'? The answer is Newton's laws were never proved/finished - they offered a very good fit to the observable universe...so good that we could develop lifts, build rockets etc....but then Einstein improved the fit even further. Einstein is also not 'proved' and relativity is simply the next step in defining the universe in the best possible way - it is bound to be improved in time.
So you see you just cannot say something as complex as laws of the universe (or the Theory of Evolution)is defined and now there is no more science....no thinking scientist would go down that route in the name of science. When individuals like Dr Jastrow says what he did then it is personal human perspective coming out (often due to religious influence) and cannot be taken as science reporting.
I think the same could apply to scientists who hoot down Intelligent Design saying that it is not or never could be considered science? I think they get a little of this egg on the face too, say in the next 50 years? Or is that different ?
No...For the reason that I.D has absolutely NO scientific merit at all. Science requires observations, theory, mechanisms, predications, and must be falsifiable. I.D has NO mechanisms, there is NO working theory, it makes NO predications nor can it of any kind. In short it is 'Goddidit' dressed up in a clown’s suit.
No scientist worth his salt would give I.D the time of day - for it just isn't science (check up on Dr. Behe's annihilation at the Dover trial here
Dover becomes intelligent design’s Waterloo | Ars Technica
Do you think that offering competing theories in science curriculum then allows for the possibility of progress? Or do you feel that weaknesses with current science theories should be suppressed? Do you feel that teaching ID (when no particular designer/Designer is postulated) as a competing theory to contemptorary biological theories is "anti - progress"?
If you really knew how science worked you'd know that science encourages all competing theories, weak and otherwise, to be aired in the scientific public forum...but the theories have to have a base scientific value to get them off the starting block. I.D is not, as I said, a scientific theory with any workable parts to it - there is simply nothing there to do anything with...
And your challenge "Evidence please!" will most likely only be met by your own appeals to "argument from authority". Sure it will. You've probably got your authorities lined up already.
We don't need 'argument from authority' - our authority is EVIDENCE. You know - that which exists in the real world, that can be touched, seen, felt, measured, on which we can perform tests, experiments, theories, predications etc....at the end of the day reality trumps wanton imagination.
To return to our OP, why would anyone want to have anything to do with an entity who invents an eternal hell? The hate level implicit in that entity is frightening beyond imagination!