To: MacDorcha
Actually, I was using it to show the ludicrousness of the statement I was replying to. (By that logic:)
And your attempt was founded in a completely invalid analogy, because you were flat-out wrong about what Darwin said regarding the theory of evolution.
My point stands: a scientific theory cannot include within it any supernatural claims.
466 posted on
04/12/2005 8:01:35 AM PDT by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator"
-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species. Chapter XV.
Your arguement still what now?
470 posted on
04/12/2005 8:10:04 AM PDT by
MacDorcha
("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
To: Dimensio
My point stands: a scientific theory cannot include within it any supernatural claims.>>>>>
You should read "Reason In the Balance" by Philip Johnson. Your definition of science as BY DEFINITION in the domain of implied naturalism is completely and totally arbitrary, and has less to do with "science" than the prevailing philosophical whims of the current scientific community.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson