Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

[RJLipkin]

In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:56:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ." But if you give a perfectly plausible account for how a complex biochemical system might have evolved, complete with tracing the possible mutations, locating gene duplications, and so forth, the answer is always, "But you can't prove that it actually happened that way". Well, that's true.         What does "prove" mean in the above?  If you posit a complex biochemical system, posit its evolution, and if that particular account of the system's evolution is far more plausible than alternative accounts, why doesn't that provide the only proof of the system's evolution that could possibly be available? A video tape or even an eye witness seems to me less weighty evidence for the same reasons that these might be discounted in court.           I'm not sure my remarks are anything more than a quibble, but I wonder if Ed's conception of "proof" is anything more than the pragmatist conception I sketched above.   Bobby   Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.