SG>Yes I do. But there are two notable problems with supernatural observation
SG>First problem is that supernatural observations are not public. If you can
SG>write back on some public supernatural observations I would like to read abo
SG>them. The second problem is that they normally happen only once. THEY CAN"T
SG>LOOKED AT AGAIN AND AGAIN (emphasis added)
JR>> One quick question: by faith do you mean beliefs that are religious in
JR>nature? > Or beliefs that are not strictly determined by the evidence (e.g.,
JR>perhaps not > held in proportion to the independently empirically confirming
JR>evidence)? Or > what?
SG>Faith is "a conviction which cannot be shaken by contrary evidence."* The
SG>conviction can be religious in nature or not. I am sure many of you could n
SG>some in the scientific field who have shown this characteristic.
SG>I think unshakable convictions are strong in 'isms' - liberalism, conservati
SG>nationalism, Mormonism**, . . .
Steve,
It seems that Dennis Durst was right. By your definition, since many
necessary tenets of Evolution-ism cannot be observed, and since it
cannot be shaken by contrary evidence, then it is faith based.
Paul
to: IN:sgooch@sm10.sciatl.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu