> -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:06 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: McCain's VP want's Creationism taught in Science Class
I wasn't actually going to reply to this but the more I thought about it the more I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I also rewrote this about a dozen times... > um. I don't think it's knowable how the universe started. But science > deals with the unknowable all the time. Questions like -- will my > father ever come out of that coma and will be be ok if he does? I know > someone that is dealing with that one this week. Questions like what > is the universe like at its edges.? Does it have an edge? > > I am impatient with people who are full of certitudes. I think that you may be mistaking scientific certitude with absolute certitude. But that's actually another, different aspect of the issue. Even if we don't consistently say "scientific fact" (which does not equal "philosophic truth") that's what we mean. But in this case, specifically, I think that one primary aspect is being missed: Science is a discipline. A human discipline. A process designed to help us understand the natural world. The understanding that we gain via the discipline may not be certain and will never be complete but the discipline itself IS OUR CREATION and we can definitely be certain about it. We invented the system, its boundaries and its requirements. It's proven incredibly competent to help us understand our world by allowing us to predict results and solve problems but it still is our creation. We apply it to the world, not the other way 'round. We can, with arrogant dismissal if we so choose, completely dismiss Intelligent Design as unscientific. We cannot declare it as "false" (since that's a philosophic issue) but we can declare it, confidently and certainly, as "scientifically false". Just to be even more pedantic Science doesn't really ever deal with the "unknowable" although it often deals with the "unknown". The old saw about not being able to prove a negative applies: anything truly "unknowable" is outside its scope. To be within the scope of science something needs to be observable, it needs to be replicable, it needs to be falsifiable. For this reason we say that God creating the universe is also scientifically false. It's not that it couldn't happen or that we can prove it didn't but rather that the requirements of the system of science haven't been met by that statement. THAT'S where the certitude lies: not in the absolute truth or falseness of any statement or idea, but rather in its applicability to the discipline of science. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:268263 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
