Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:31:45 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D6EA0D1.BC94AE8D@mindspring.com> References: <20020829141534.H34390-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > One's definition of many words is governed by that. That won't > > make them into the consensus definition. > > On the other hand, the question arises, what makes the consensus > definition correct? The inability to communicate otherwise. 8-). [ ... "Creation Science" ... ] > > is not actually a science, because it violates the first principles > > of science. > > Correction: it violates the first principles of science as defined by > naturalists, not science as defined by creationists. See, it's all > worldviews. Contrast "evolutionary" science with "creation" science. > Why does one qualify as "science" while the other does not? Do they > not both bring philosophical baggage to the table? Is it even possible > to step outside one's worldview to evaluate the evidence? Is not the > way one evaluates the evidence conditioned by one's philosophical > prejudices? Is there some independent criteria for judging between > the two that is not arbitrary? Yes. Starting from first principles, can you build a working light bulb? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D6EA0D1.BC94AE8D>