Scientific data is collected by mechanical, electrical, etc. devices and so
cannot be classified as illusions. If that were the case, then we are all
interns in a mental asylum. Only man can have illusions. Of course, there
are some who consider certain observations as the subject matter of science
that are not. Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: John Burgeson <burgy@compuserve.com>
To: gordon brown <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
Cc: ASA LISTSERV <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Friday, October 06, 2000 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Omphalos
Gordon Brown gave away the trick -- at least part of it, when he wrote
about OMPHALOS: "It cannot be refuted SCIENTIFICALLY."
Or -- what some of us have called "Last Tuesdayism" for a number of years.
Gordon also adds : " It simply says that we can declare
any scientific observation to be an illusion if we want to."
I take it just a bit differently than that, Gordon, although your thought
has some truth in it. It is not "simply," I would assert, and
it does not suggest that any particular scientific observation is an
illusion -- only that, since everything came into being "suddenly"
in a mature form, one cannot posit any history which explains those
observations -- at least no history prior to a few 1000 years ago.
Gosse's view might, indeed, be true; we cannot refute it. We also can
do nothing at all to either test it --or to create research programmes
based on it. As Gordon says, it does not fit the scientific model in the
least.
If one assumes it is true, there appears nothing at all one can do with
that information.
Gordon also suggested we could refute Gosse's thesis with an appeal
to Scripture. The argument is a good one, but of no interest, of course,
to people who don't take Scripture seriously. Perhaps "God" is really
a cosmic joker? There are other possibilities of course.
Peace
Burgy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 08:41:38 EDT