Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:59:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020829204315.O37029-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D6EE0FD.8FA2080@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Yes. Starting from first principles, can you build a working > > > light bulb? > > > > Seems a bit arbitrary to me, besides the fact that both are likely to > > claim to be able to do this. However, let's talk about those first > > principles. What if the reason that both can build useful things such > > as lightbulbs is that one of the two options is relying on concepts > > which only make sense given the other's worldview, and in fact is > > borrowing those concepts from that other worldview? > > The Catholic Church had 1800 years to do it, and didn't. Science, > once formalized, did it in about 100. As I'm not all that fond of the Catholic Church myself, I'll let that one slide for now. But the question remains, how is "science" by *anyone's* definition even possible? David Hume undermined the basis of modern science when he pointed out that there is no rational basis for thinking that nature will remain uniform. Every attempted (atheistic) explanation that I've seen assumes the uniformity of nature and thus begs the question. The scientific method has worked well in the past, but that has no relevance to whether or not it will work in the future. In a random chance universe, anything is possible. Given those presuppositions, for all you know when you squeeze the tube of toothpaste in the morning, strawberry jam will come out. 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?20020829204315.O37029-100000>