From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 15:33: 9 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 848B137B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCB443E77 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:33:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0433.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.193.178] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kXqX-00076V-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:33:01 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6EA0D1.BC94AE8D@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:31:45 -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: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020829141534.H34390-100000@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: > > One's definition of many words is governed by that. That won't > > make them into the consensus definition. > > On the other hand, the question arises, what makes the consensus > definition correct? The inability to communicate otherwise. 8-). [ ... "Creation Science" ... ] > > is not actually a science, because it violates the first principles > > of science. > > Correction: it violates the first principles of science as defined by > naturalists, not science as defined by creationists. See, it's all > worldviews. Contrast "evolutionary" science with "creation" science. > Why does one qualify as "science" while the other does not? Do they > not both bring philosophical baggage to the table? Is it even possible > to step outside one's worldview to evaluate the evidence? Is not the > way one evaluates the evidence conditioned by one's philosophical > prejudices? Is there some independent criteria for judging between > the two that is not arbitrary? Yes. Starting from first principles, can you build a working light bulb? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message