Other sources of Truth that Richard Dawkins et al probably accept
would include such things as historical evidence. I've never
heard a natural scientist insist on an atomic explanation for
Napoleon's decisions, for example. There are more than 2 kinds of
evidence.
Carol Regehr
> Doug:
>
> Wouldn't you suppose Richard Dawkins & Co to be of that mind? After all,
> for them, what other sources of Truth are there?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Vernon
>
>
> Doug Hayworth wrote:
> >
> > At 01:51 PM 7/20/00 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> > >I suggest these negative attributes are not the exclusive province of
> > >YECism, but rather extend across the board. How is it that scientists
> > >can arbitrarily exclude the supernatural from their deliberations (or
> > >water it down, as the case may be!) and yet pretend they are the sole
> > >purveyors and guardians of Truth?
> >
> > Just for the record, I don't know ANY scientists who believe that they
> > (either individually or collectively as the scientific community) are the
> > sole purveyors and guardians of Truth.
> >
> > Doug
-- cregehr@phys.ksu.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 17:05:31 EDT