"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Australopithecus scobis wrote:

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:46:06 -0700, fredfighter wrote:


The problem is that ID is not obviously true or false and for that
matter,
neither is science. Both can only be argued on philosophical (and
perhaps
utilitarian) grounds. No absolute winner can ever be demonstrated.
Hence
ID is legitimately entitled to as much traction as the scientific belief
system.


Sigh. The paragraph above is wrong is so many ways. Science discovers the
way the world is. The scientific method tests hypotheses against
experiment. When experiment contradicts a hypothesis, the hypothesis is
rejected, or modified and tested again. Science considers falsifiable
hypotheses. "Falsifiable" means that an experiment can be devised which
would, if the hypothesis is false, contradict the hypothesis. Note that
to
be falsifiable, the actual experiment need not
be technically or economically possible at the time of its proposal.
This

OK - let's test your little rant here. Describe an experiment, in
principle,
that could falsify the First Proposition of Science: That a materialist/
mechanist set of methods are *sufficient* to apprehend all that can
(in principle) be known by Reason-Empiricism. Hint: You can't.
All systems of knowlege have non-falsifiable starting propositions,
even your dearly-believed science.

WABOS. Are you teaching Philosopy of Science now? Where do you get this
so-called FPOS? Look here http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm, for what
John Stuart Mill says about the principles and structure of science. One of
the big problems of this discussion is you invent your own epistemology and
then accuse others of not playing by your rules. There is a well developed
structure and nomenclature available, developed by better minds than yours,
and an immense body of knowledge that is the basis of the disciplines of
science. Catch up before you try to overthrow.

all means that scientific hypotheses are open-ended, that
they haven't been "proven" in the vernacular sense. Here's where the
ignorant get confused. While all scientific hypotheses are
formally provisional, science does indeed _disprove_ with certainty.
Scientific theories are those hypotheses which have withstood many
rigorous experiments. QED is an amazingly accurate theory. The ignorant

Inter-species evolution is one such "scientific theory." Please cite
the "rigorous experiments" that justify it. Hint: You can't because
this is a theory that is based on secondary evidence and induction.
Direct experiment is impossible because of the timeframes involved.
This means that this theory is *weaker* than one where direct experimental
evidence exists and thus is more open to criticism.

Is "secondary" supposed to denigrate the evidence and convince us of its
weakness? Evolution is like astronomy, based on observation rather than
direct experimentation. In particular, it is hard to do experiments because
our lives are too short, our reach too limited. Nonetheless, there is a
huge body of experimental knowledge to form the basis of an overarching
theory (evolution, cosmology) that ties the observations together and allows
scientists to understand what is observed, why it is that way, and what
might happen in some other set of conditions.


aren't marching on Washington to have Aristotle's notions of light taught
in the classroom, though. Hmm. Science is not a belief system. Science is
common sense, formalized.

Science is most assuredly a belief system. It has unprovable starting
propositions, a teleology, an epistemology, and all the rest that go
with a system of belief. It's sole justification is *utilitarian* -
It does useful things for us. But your attempt to elevate it as
a somehow *innately better* system than any other belief system
is absurd.


Superstition, on the other hand, is a bunch of Just So stories,
untestable, unreliable, unnecessary.
Science, indeed all rational thought, is hard. Superstition is easy.

Your philosophical naivete' is astonishing. You *believe* in Reason
though you cannot demonstrate anything more than its utility - certainly
not its sufficiency. You believe that there is no intelligent
action behind the actions of the physical world you observe. This is a
superstition no different than the inverse argument - neither is
ultimately demonstrable or falsifiable. *All* thought is hard.
Presuming reason-empiricism to be innately better than all other
forms of thinking is foolish and presumptuous.


The real issue is that the ignoramuses want to force everyone to
not-think, too. Don't fall into their trap of debating reality vs
creationism. There is no debate. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection
is

Evolution is a *theory* some aspects of which are far more likely than
others.
But, sadly, like a depressing number of other people I've met you
choose to *believe* it with religious fervor and describe anyone who
disagrees with you as an "ignoramus".

one process whereby evolution occurs. Creationists are willfully ignorant
fools. That's not an ad hominem argument, that's a fact.

This is indeed ad hominem and the sign of a debater terrified that
their intellectual house-of-cards will be exposed for the fraud that
it is. Pleople who cling to their position screaming that everyone
who disagrees with it is an idiot are called "religious fundamentalists",
and you are every bit that ...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

It is hard to know where to stop with this rant. So, I will stop here. For
now.

RAmen
Steve