Now hold on a second. Correcting a typo is one thing, but as I understand it, Aristotle's "mistake" of defining reality as consisting of earth, air, fire, and water stunted the growth of science for 2000 years. It took other scientists to look Aristotle in the eye (I know, he was long gone) and say, "[Your] Science can take a hike," before science moved on.
Your mistake was smaller, so it was easier to correct. So what? Aristotle's mistakes took longer to fix because they had some validity (as BH has pointed out). The closer a theory describes reality, the longer it will stand.
Also, saying something "stunted the growth of science" is risky because it's an untestable proposition. Often incorrect theories promote science because they promote research to explain the "holes". Furthermore, if you take the line you did, well... know what else seriously "stunted the growth of science"? The church and "common sense" declaring that the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo and all that, remember? And why is it now accepted that the Earth isn't the center of the universe? Evidence. The evidence was in Galileo's favor, regardless of what church dogma insisted. And guess what, the evidence is in favor of biological evolution and against a short global flood.
BTW, to some degree you are correct: the veneration of Aristotle
did cause science some problems. Which is exactly why modern scientists require science NOT to hold anything "holy", but to test all theories as much as possible.
Bottom line: whenever anyone holds to a party line (be it an authority like Aristotle or Einstein, a political affiliation, a religious text, "common sense", or anything else) they will resist new ideas and evidence, to the detriment of knowledge. Whenever anyone is open to correcting their views, based on new evidence, their knowledge will advance.
I don't mind today's science pwning yesterday's, and tomorrow's science pwning today's;
Do you actually want to be taken seriously? I'm just curious, because if you do, it might help to stop sounding like a 14-year-old gaming dork. But anyway, today's science very rarely "pwns" yesterday's, because if yesterday's was good science, it worked well and, rather than being "pwned", it was simply updated with a better, more complete model. Newtonian mechanics is technically wrong, but accurate enough that we still use it in a vast number of applications -- Newton was hardly "pwned" by Einstein.
but when science sticks it paradigms into the realm of the divine and says, "Didn't happen" --- that's where God's people need to step in and put "science" in its place.
Science doesn't deal in the divine. But, as has been explained to you numerous times, the key paradigms of science are common to most (if not all) intellectual pursuits. Evidence, consistency, logic, testability, etc etc etc.
You want to know why the Tower of Babel incident took place?
Not particularly, but since you opined anyway...
In my opinion, science was developing too fast for mankind, and God stepped in and shot it in the foot.
So why hasn't God shot us in the foot again? Science is progressing much faster now than then. Why is mankind progressing faster to keep up? Are we evolving?
As I have said before, until science can build a machine that can do this:
[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]
--- science can take a hike.
Says the man on a computer. Anyway, science has done that: Lysergic acid diethylamide.
