Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:10:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020907110109.T44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D7A3376.A858DD79@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "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? Evolution is not, as it relies on chance. Chance, by definition, is unpredictable. > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis to me. Please explain. Oh, and I didn't catch your answer as to how we have boys and girls. > > > 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. Why do you think that Christians would necessarily want to incorporate it as a specifically *Christian* state? By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. > > 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. Oh really? Please explain. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't *increase* predictability, it decreases it. And since the primary mechanism of evolution is chance, evolution cannot be said to be predictable at all. How does evolution overcome this problem? Please explain. > 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). What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020907110109.T44831-100000>