Scanned by: Accel Roseover 6 years ago
Here's an AWESOME post re: the need to shift certain scientific theories backed by a sufficient body of testable proof to the point where they become law. Clive Thompson sums up, "If someone says, 'I don't believe in the theory of evolution,' they may sound fairly reasonable. But if someone announces, 'I don't believe in the law of evolution,' they sound insane. It's tantamount to saying, 'I don't believe in the law of gravity.'" Personally, I think that Laws emerge when the majority of people can understand the law and agree that it is a Law. Such understanding only diffuses when a the logical framework supporting the law can be diffused easily. IMO, that means that we can only increase consensus by bettering our communication, probably through visuals, video and simulation.
One of the things that I most appreciate about the scientific community, and the intelligent community at large, is their humility. I personally associate law with Deuteronomy and Leviticus, rabbis and judges, for whom Law is binding. I rather consider truth to be in flux. Two seemingly contradictory ideas may co-exist at once, and together flourish into greater understanding. Sometimes I think that the atheists and scientists of the world are better versed in the spirit of Christianity than most self-described Christians are. Take exodus 25:21: “And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” The mercy seat on top of the ark of the law. This powerfully reminds us that our humanity, with all of its faults, must sit ABOVE the law. I feel that the scientific community is more in touch with this than the Christian, and hence theory, and not the inhuman rigidity of law.