Very convenient, Larry. Nothing you've said (I've read all your other posts this morning) pokes any of the logic I presented last night.
Since you can't contradict the logic, you'll ignore it, I guess. H. -----Original Message----- From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:24 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Evolution and Education -- for Larry Its not even worth responding at this stage. -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:37 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Evolution and Education -- for Larry > > > While your missive for scientific rigor is admirable, it is > not without its > flaws. > > Let's stipulate (just for the purpose of discussion), that no > scientist who > even softly supports any manner of intelligent design theory > has been able > to prove a single thesis in support of intelligent design > (not a point I'm > conceding at this juncture). > > With that stipulation, we can still safely say that such a > lack of evidence > does not prove that God has not dipped his finger into the soup. > > Example: At one time, scientists had not yet proven that > cigarettes cause > cancer. > > At that time, would it have been logical to say, "It is not > proven that > cigarettes do not cause cancer; therefore, cigarettes do not > cause cancer." > > Of course that not a logical argument. It's an argument supported by > ignorance, not by fact. > > So what you're saying is, "It has not been proven that a > creator mucked > about with evolution; therefore, a creator did not muck about with > evolution." > > Lack of evidence does not prove a theory in either direction. > > Well, you may object, the cancer causing nature of cigarettes is a > verifiable outcome; however, the touch of God is not > verifiable, therefore > it is not a valid field of study. > > Again, this violates basic logic. > > At best, you can say, "So far no scientific method has been found that > proves or disproves a supernatural phenomena; therefore, > scientists should > not try and find a way to study supernatural phenomena." > > You should be able to see that such reasoning is facially illogical. > > In other words, the scientific method you are arguing for is > simply grand > circular logic. If ABC can't be proven, ABC shouldn't be > studied. It is a > system of reasoning designed to keep science a closed shop > impregnable by > any who dare question its orthodoxy. > > And by foisting this circular logic on our education system, > a cadre of > like-minded scientists are able to breed a form propaganda that imbues > impressionable young minds with a possibly false understanding of the > natural world. > > A final complaint: You seem to like to support a lot of your > claims by > referring to "creationist" or "creationism," which really > confuses the issue > since nobody here is in any manner advocating "creationism" > as the term is > commonly understood. I find this a disingenuous method to > avoid dealing > with the hard questions of the debate. > > > H. > > > > > > > > > > Larry wrote: > > >If creationism, or Intelligent Design can fit within the > criteria of a > >scientific theory, then its appropriate to teach it in a > science class. > >Since both depend on religion, as far as I can see its just > another attempt > >by fundies to break the church state barrier. > > > >Remember a theory in science has to be able to be disproven by > contradictory > >evidence. Such as not happened. Where is the contradictory > evidence? simply > >put there is none. > > > >A competing theory must also provide a better explanation of > the existent > >data. Neither cretinism (pardon creationism) nor intelligent > design meet > >that criteria. Moreover there is no valid data that support either > >creationism or intelligent design. > > > >Therefore creationism and are quite rightly dismissed. They > do not explain > >the findings of over a century of research. They do not > provide a better > >explanatory model, nor are they predictive as is the current > models of > >evolution. Given their inadequacies they are quite rightly > dismissed by the > >scientific community. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
