Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:49:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020829141534.H34390-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D6E84A5.7C940552@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: Thanks for the references... > > > > Science is a religion. Like most religions, you see what you want to > > > > see; usually this is not truth. > > > > > > Science is a process, not a religion. > > > > One's definition of science is governed by his religion, or underlying > > worldview, if you will. > > 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? > Just as "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? > > > > > > There are no real points, and you can't usefully orthogonalize the > > > > world into finite integer divisions to be analyzed separately. The > > > > subject and the object are one. > > > > > > You failed statistics and modern physics, didn't you? 8-). There > > > *are* real points; even if you can't identify them, you can identify > > > their effects. And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity > > > above a quantum level is a popular misconception. > > > > What about the OJ trial? > > It's interesting from a lot of perspectives; the major perspective > is that, had he not been a celebrity, the amount of prosecutorial > effort would likely have been insufficient to convict him; likewise, > had he not been a celebrity, he would have not had access to sufficient > legal representation to stave off that level of prosecutorial effort. I should have included a smiley, I was just jesting... =) Regards, Neal 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?20020829141534.H34390-100000>