Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics.

Posted by Pat D (A) on October 18, 2003 at 17:20:35

In Reply to: Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics. posted by dado4 on October 18, 2003 at 09:17:01:

You said:

"Bowlen's statement is most certainly a statement of philosophical materialism. It is simply a declaration that he will accept any naturalistic explanation of life as a theory of evolution."

Bowler's statement is no more a statement of philosophic materialism than is atomic theory or Newton's laws of motion or Einstein's Theories of Relativity. But some people in the past have thought that Newton's laws and atomic theory are philosophic materialism. They are not. Neither is evolution.

You said:

" Darwin's idea, however, is stated by every one of its apologists to a man as scientific theory (if not fact)."

Evolution is the fact; natural selection is the theory. Or wasn't Stephen J. Gould a major apologist for evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

You said:

"The big distinction is that, unlike Darwin's idea's, they are provable falsifiable."

Nonsense. Certainly they are falsifiable and all you have to do is to show that the development of life occurred in some major different way. Nothing in science, however, can be absolutely proved. By the way, Newtonian physics apparently did not explain the orbit of Mercury, yet was not rejected outright as it covered so many things well and was useful for research.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

You said:

"My basis for limiting genetic variation is observation. Change beyond well defined boundaries in any extant biological grouping has yet to be observed."

What are those "well-defined limits"?

Good, you looked up pistis. Primarily it is trust. Nothing to do with believing propositions beyond the evidence.

You said:

"A historic fact is cannot be subject to repeatable testing. All we have to go on is the report of individuals who were close to the event. In many cases we have but a single report, often fully interpreted long after the fact (as in the case of translating ancient languages/pictographs). In more recent times we often have multiple reports of an event, but many times these account conflict."

As I said, for you history is "scissors and paste," as Collingwood put it. That's not history.

You said:

"Challenge my understanding of any creation myth, but let's be specific. I am familiar with the biblical account, the Norse stories, the Greek and Roman myths, the ancient southwest indians, the Aztec, ancient Japanese accounts, the Hindu stories and a few others. And by the way, I will not argue from allegory so no need to worry about wild interpretation."

Anyone who thinks creations myths operate on the same ground as scientific theories doesn't understand creation myths. How do they function?

Are familiar with the background to Gen. 1:1-2:4a? For example, have you ever read the Baal epic and the Enuma Elish? Any real science in any of them? What are the similarities and differences?
____________________________________________________________
"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:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---