follow the logic behind the theory, look at how it was tested, see how
the supporting evidence was analyed and how the conclusions are drawn.
Basic stuff. Of course I cannot comment on other fields of research
unless I have some background in it. At the same time I can look at a
theory and apply some basics of the scientific method, and follow some
of the philosophy of science's reccomendations, ie is it falsifiable
for instance. In this case how do you concieve of an experiment that
doesn't support creationism, as it is currently modeled. You cannot.
Therefore it cannot be considered to be a scientific theory. Thus it
should not be taught in a science class.
larry
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:45:09 -0400, Ben Doom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Science does not operate on faith. Faith is completely unnecessary.
> > Data and theory (ie models of reality) are what is necessary. You can
> > toss faith out the window and still do very good science. Essentially
> > faith is orthoginal to real science.
>
> Unless you are way smarter than me, you don't understand all of current
> theory. You have faith that the guys doing it are, at least in a
> general way, getting it right.
>
> Even where I can understand the theory (like Newton's mechanics) I don't
> have time (or interest) to make celestial observations necessary to
> validate them. I also don't have a cyclotron to look for quarks. I
> believe that quarks exist, but this is faith.
>
> The only difference, at least in my opinion, is that in science, we have
> faith in the abilities of our fellow man. While there's a great history
> of people doing brilliant things, I have a lot more personal experience
> with stupidity. My faith in God is based on personal experience leading
> to believe he (lacking a better pronoun) exists, despite the fact that
> an informal study of religious history would lead me to believe he didn't.
>
> --Ben
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
