From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 0: 3:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C25137B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150FF43E4A for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:03:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0057.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.57] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nZcb-0001IF-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:03:09 -0700 Message-ID: <3D79A471.FA17DAF6@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:02:09 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020906153844.K44494-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > Who is second-guessing the scientific method? I happen to think it works > quite well, when allowed to truly work. Problem with evolution is that, > almost 150 years later, it is no more closer to being empirically verified > than it was in 1859. So lets drop it and get on with something else > already. The scientific method never verifies, it only falsifies, so asking that something be empirically verified, whether it be the old theory of evolution, the current theory of puctuated equilibria, or that gravity is related to the curvature of space, is asking for the impossible. Science can only demonstrate the invalidity of ideas, not their validity. > Actually you have that exactly backwards. It is my brand of protestantism > that made the constitution possible. 8-) ??? FWIW: Most of "the founding fathers" were Deists. Protestants were a monority for a very long time. > And you are making assumptions again. I do not expect Christianity to > be taught in public schools. I just don't want evolution dogmatically > taught as "the truth" when there are other explanations that better > account for the data. Is that too much to ask for? Science never teaches anything as "the truth"; although teachers who don't understand science might do that, it's a corruption of the process for them to do so. What science teaches is *theory*, stories which explain empirical observations. The stories science tells are just that -- stories. Science is an art critic, if it is anything, in that it prefers simple stories to complex ones. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message