observe the hand of god. It could just as easily be true that my
farting in WI magically caused the evolution in a lab in CT. What the
science tells you is what it observes happening and what it can rule
out as the causes for that. Since you can't disprove the non-existance
of something, if the hand of god doesn't exist, then it's impossible
to rule that out as a possiblity. That's not to say that it doesn't
exist, but if it doesn't then there's no way to prove that it doesn't.
You continue to press that science is ALL about believing what someone
else says. But science is ONLY valuable if the theories are
continually tested. Yes, scientists do stand on the shoulders of
giants. But those shoulders have been tested repeatedly and can be
tested again ad infinitum.
As for the presented theorums being only understandable by a few, the
few now that can understand them can test them. And they are not
secret knowledge stored in some modern-day temple of Luxor that only
the initiates can see. They are out there for the next really smart
person to challenge. But that's the extreme examples. Most science is
done by the average person plugging away at a problem, continually
eliminating what isn't the cause in order to generally narrow down to
what is.
I'm not discluding the possiblity of gods or magic. I'm just trying to
point out how the belief systems of those and the system of how
science is believed are different. IMO, if gods and magic exist, then
they will eventually be provable and then they would obviously no
longer be super-natural.
-Kevin
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:16:45 -0400, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it has been observed? What is the difference between someone observing
> a disease mutate and saying it evolved and saying that the hand of God came
> down from the sky and changed it, at least from an individuals stand.
>
> If an alien came down and was unfamiliar with anything on Earth but was
> very logical. I think the alien would have a hard time understanding what
> the difference between a normal person accepting religion and a normal
> person accepting science. Both require a large amount of faith and
> ultimately you get to a point where you have to take someone else's word.
>
> That said, I think that science offers a lot more in terms of how to think
> about a problem. You start with a problem and you come to an
> answer. popular religion's main course is you start with an answer and try
> to re-frame the question so it fits within the world view. But at high
> level science, the actions taken by the masses is essentially the same.
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
