From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 15:31:27 EST
george murphy wrote:
> What I find objectionable is that, when the issue is whether or not
> ID should be included in science curricula in public schools & in some other
> venues, they try to play the "nobody here but us scientists and philosophers"
> game.
> I think this latest attempt to present some version of
> theistic creation
> as a scientific alternative to evolution is dangerous both for
> science education
> and for the mission of the Christian church (for somewhat different reasons).
> It need to be confronted by scientifically knowledgeable Christians
>for what it
> actually is, a religiously based cultural and political movement which makes
> scientfic claims.
I have raised this issue before and nobody seems to be willing to
back up the claim
that evolution is a real scientific theory. If is is, then it can be
simply stated
and then have a definite set of conditions under which it can be
falsified. If it
is not a falsifiable theory which can be invalidated somehow, then it
is no more a
scientific theory than ID is!
In my opinion, the evolutionary THEORY, not the "FACT", (excuse the
capitals) is
just a set of shifting sand that is adamantly supported by scientists
who refuse to
yield any ground at all in their quest for absolute scientific naturalism ---
proven or not. Slapping Band-Aids year after year on Darwin's first
notions hardly
makes for an acceptable theory by most scientific standards in other fields.
IMO
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 30 2002 - 16:53:57 EST