causative agent (god).
As for people's individual relationships to science, you are correct
to a point. As Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." And the clever corollary from someone
else: "Any technology that does not appear magical is insufficiently
advanced."
The key factor in that though is that a technology was made by
somebody. So while you can say that some people will not be able to
distinguish between science and god or magic, you can't say that is
true of all people. Same as in your logic example.
I think for the most part that we're dancing around with semantics and
assumptions of meaning more than anything substantial. And to be
honest, I've realized I'm being slightly disingenuous since I'm a bit
of a solipsist. :-)
-Kevin
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:27:30 -0400, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this only supports my claim. I'm not saying it was the hand of
> God. But logically: I'm sitting at home and someone tells me that fish
> changed because of evolution and someone else said the fish changed because
> of the hand of God. At this point I have to make a decision. Do I believe in
>
> a) it was evolution
> b) it was the hand of God
> c) they are both wrong
> d) they are both right
>
> But really C and D are not options. Because for someone to say it is the
> Hand of God tacitly implies it can't be anything else. And the same for
> evolution (until another scientific theory is presented). But despite
> having the willingness to really re-produce what ever test the biologist
> conducted to come to that conclusion - I can't. 1) because I can't conduct
> test and 2) I don't have enough knowledge to draw the same conclusions at
> the scientist. I mean ultimately, isn't this what is happening.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
