At 02:34 PM 05/02/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Susan:
> >you are assuming that evolution has something to do with religion. It
> >doesn't. "Materialistic-naturalism" is required for science. There's no way
> >to conduct science without that assumption. Or, at least, neither you nor
> >Johnson has come up with any viable suggestions as to how one would go
> >about conducting science without that assumption.
>
>Bertvan:
>I respectfully disagree. An assumption of "materialistic-naturalism" is not
>required. One can just as easily do science under an assumption of design.
>Science is the process of observation and accurate measurements. Those who
>assume design are, in my estimation, more likely to decipher the details of
>the design than those who insist no design can possibly exist
Bertvan, do you believe that observation and accurate measurement is an
adequate definition of science? If so, do you believe that cooking and
sewing and accounting and football are science?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 02 2000 - 15:40:11 EDT