From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 10:13:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0814F37B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD2743E65 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:13:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0206.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.206] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nj99-0002zf-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:13:23 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7A3376.A858DD79@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:12:22 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020907081044.U44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > The scientific method never verifies, it only falsifies, so asking > > that something be empirically verified, whether it be the old theory > > of evolution, the current theory of puctuated equilibria, or that > > gravity is related to the curvature of space, is asking for the > > impossible. Science can only demonstrate the invalidity of ideas, > > not their validity. > > Okay, then lets stop pretending that creation is "unscientific" while > evolution is "scientific". Neither one of them can be falsified, so > either *both* of them are scientific, or neither of them are. You > can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim an explanation > must also be "naturalistic", I charge you with providing a > justification for such arbitrariness. I guess we can keep on calling the currently accepted scientific theory "evolution", even though that's not the correct name for it. With that in mind, the methods you use judge one theory vs. another are: 1) Are the theories predictive? 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > FWIW: Most of "the founding fathers" were Deists. Protestants > > were a monority for a very long time. > > False. Of the 55 writers and signers of the Constitution, 29 were > anglicans, 16-18 were calvinists, 2 were methodists, 2 were lutherans, > 2 were roman catholic, 1 was a quaker, and there was only 1 open > Deist (Ben Franklin) who himself attended practically every kind > of Christian worship. The constitution was based on the model of > state constitutions, which were in turn based on the presbyterian > form of church government. Try again. That somewhat begs the question of why it was not then incorporated as a Christian state... according to historical information (I expect you can do your own web search) most of them were in fact Deists. Realize that Deism does not explicitly contradict Christian doctrine. > I don't know if you realize it or not, but here in California if > you try to teach a theory of origins other than evolution, you > *will* be fired. So what happended to all the "open-minded" > attitudes and academic freedom? If you try to teach the creationist story in a secular school, I expect you will likely be fired, because from a scientific perspective, the creationist theory fails the both the simplicity and predictive tests, when compared to the evolutionist theory. This doesn't contradict academic freedom, though it does contradict non-academic freedom in the context of a secular institution. The place to address this is a non-secular institution (e.g enroll your children in non-state sponsored schools). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message