Too shallow...perhaps it'd be better to say as "necessarily both necessary and sufficient" for proof.
No, I stated my reasoning. The above would be another discusion.
However I will give that creationests attempt to use science to disprove science.
If you have a flawed theory of how to build an airplane, and you insist on the theory, the airplane will correct it by crashing to the ground."
I would ask how many airplanes were built on faith?
and
and
and
and
I'm still looking for an mpeg of the movie of the guy with the tail strapped to his back attempting to "flap" wooden wings and get off the ground. (He didn't make it).
Too shallow...perhaps it'd be better to say as "necessarily both necessary and sufficient" for proof.
No, I stated my reasoning. The above would be another discusion.
Leave it for now; I interpreted your remarks as saying that *most* or *all* religious people of a certain bent reject experimental evidence; in my experience it is not that they always reject experiment on principle, but that they do not consider experimental evidence to be *absolutely* and *always* the last word...they reserve the right of skepticism towards scientific findings.
Sometimes it is due to the suspicion a given experiment was flawed, or was executed poorly, or they have philosophical reservations.
You can find similar attitudes towards mainstream *medicine* by those who advocate non-traditional, or holistic, or nutritional treatment of diseases. It is not exclusively religious in origin.
I would ask how many airplanes were built on faith?
That wasn't my point--my point is that I was able to quote a well known anti-evolutionary author who nonetheless endorsed empiricism and logical thought. It was a counterexample to the claim you had made in an earlier post.
If you wish to say "many such people" reject empiricism, or even "most anti-evo people on the crevo threads" I'd agree.
Cheers!