In Reply to: Science is, by definition, proof. posted by dado4 on October 16, 2003 at 22:11:55:
You said:"Bowlen's definition is not very definitive is it? It is merely an open ended statement of philosophical naturalism/materialism which contains absolutely no explanatory power (or perhaps infinite explanatory power, which is the same thing scientifically)."
How is it a statement of philosophic naturalism? I suppose you think Newton's laws, atomic theory, and Einstein's Theories of Relativity are philosophic naturalism, as they make no reference to God.
You said:
"History is unobservable but it as been observed, otherwise it would not be history. There plenty of areas of this planet where we have no record whatsoever of what it's inhabitants did at given periods of time. In other words, we don't have any history. I don't mean to be so elementary but we must not confuse ideas here and that is what occurred in your original post."
You don't understand history. You probably think of it as wht Collingwood referred to as "scissors and paste" history, which isn't really history at all.
You also said:
"Of course genetic variation occurs and has occurred. This is not evolution. It is just variation. It tells us that dogs come in many colors and sizes. It does not tell us that dogs will become non-dogs or that they came from non-dogs."
This is the sort of claptrap put out by creation science organizations. You seem to pose some arbitrary limit on the effects of genetic variations. What basis have you for doing so?
You said:
"How do you define faith? Is it not intellectual assent to a body of data without regard to it's empirical veracity?"
No. Why should I? Just because you say so? You really ought to look up what the word actually means, in Greek, that is.
You said:
"The only difference between various creation stories and Darwin's theory is that Darwin postulates natural processes in his story as opposed supernatural. His mechanism however, is just as unobservable as any supernatural one."
You don't understand creation myths either.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Natural science is not pure mathematics. - Pat D 15:57:23 10/17/03 (12)
- Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics. - dado4 09:17:01 10/18/03 (11)
- Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics. - Pat D 17:20:35 10/18/03 (10)
- Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics. - dado4 20:00:33 10/18/03 (9)
- Newton's Law of Gravity and the Orbit of Mercury - Pat D 21:40:20 10/25/03 (7)
- Re: Newton's Law of Gravity and the Orbit of Mercury - dado4 19:57:00 10/30/03 (6)
- ROFL: You contradict yourself again and again. - Pat D 10:03:07 10/31/03 (5)
- I am not seeing this. - dado4 14:53:00 11/01/03 (4)
- Did the sun rise millions of years ago? - Pat D 21:22:32 11/01/03 (3)
- What are we arguing here? - dado4 07:56:07 11/02/03 (2)
- Re: What are we arguing here? - jeff mai 00:35:06 11/03/03 (0)
- GMAB - Pat D 12:21:31 11/02/03 (0)
- Did the sun rise in the distant past? - Pat D 16:49:02 10/19/03 (0)