I'd agree if it were a matter of a mistake, like cold fusion. But when
one has to equate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism
in spite of correction, and when SETI is misrepresented [Jim Hoffman
yesterday noted
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html],
and when the last stage of the sieve gives "either design or rare
accident," I don't see how any good thing can come from ID.
I recall someplace someone saying that more is learned from failure than
success. This is probably connected to the fact that truth is one, but
falsity is close to infinitely variable. While science is not simply
true, it is an attempt to come to the truth in so far as we are able. On
the other hand, pursuit of the false has no advantage except to the con
man and his ilk.
Dave
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:42:50 EDT Dawsonzhu@aol.com writes:
<snip>
Perhaps though, the hardness of their situation may help
them open a real field of mathematics... who knows. Why
must we always have the attitude that we must "stamp out!"
everything we don't agree with? _Serious_ individuals do
learn something even if the lesson is "don't go that way
next time!" and "you were a fool to take that one on".
Some of the best lessons do come from failure because
you learn what recourse you should take to avoid repeating
those mistakes. It is probably not a blessing to always be
successful.
by Grace we proceed,
Wayne
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 6 00:37:15 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 06 2007 - 00:37:15 EDT