To: Fester Chugabrew
"Not according to the root meaning. It only needs those things if one is insistent upon a narrow meaning. That is an approach particularly well-suited to ideologues like yourself."
Nonsense. The definition I gave has been the standard for science since Galileo and Newton. No scientific theory has incorporated supernatural explanations that can't be tested empirically and that don't have predictive power. Don't argue with me, argue with Galileo and Newton. In your mystical world, they are now ideologues.
"You have a low standard for the capabilities of science. Don't worry, science does just fine without your self-imposed limitations."
I have a respect for the DEFINED limitations of science, which all science has had to observe; limitations that are imposed by the nature of existence. You are just willfully ignorant about what science is. You have made up a new definition of science, one that you have defined to include anything and everything under the sun.
"Is the "=" sign the only one you know?"
Do you have a point with this idiotic statement?
Please, PLEASE, loosen the vice!
1,023 posted on
11/18/2005 9:06:57 AM PST by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Clearly you work with your own limited definition of science. Mine is wide enough to accomodate, among other things, indirect evidence to substantiate intelligent design as operative in every aspect of the universe. It happens to be a properly scientific point of view through both inductive and deductive reasoning.
All you can do with your definition is say, "We don't know and we can't know." So go ahead and throw up your hands in defeat. Science will carry on and discover, just as it discovered through this unltra-sensitive microscope, that even the smallest particles of matter behave as if they were designed.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
My point is that design and order do not have to be equal in order to be related. I asked you whether one can exist completely apart from the other, and you dodged that question as well as you've left a host of other questions unanswered. But that's okay. You're the one who insists science "cannot know" where there is design, and where there is intelligence, and where the two might just be related.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson