At 01:42 AM 10/06/2000, you wrote:
>There is no generally accepted, scientific origin-of-life theory.
>No such theory is a scientific fact. I am not sure what my previous
>sentence is supposed to mean but if "fact" = "true," then there is
>no OOL theory that is "true." For that matter, there is no scientific
>theory of any kind that is "true."
>
>Dembski's approach to science is a very dubious one. He doesn't
>propose hypotheses and then seek to verify them. Rather, he attempts
>to deduce conclusions by demonstrating that all alternative hypotheses
>are effectively impossible. And he claims that his conclusions are
>never wrong (i.e., no false positives). This isn't science and it
>doesn't work.
Chris
It's Rationalism and Platonism, the application of arbitrarily defined and
fixed ideas to the world regardless of whether they fit the *world*,
because they fit what's in the person's *mind.*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 11 2000 - 15:48:13 EDT