Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Unlike you I am not inclined to rule certain things out when it comes to the practice of science."

What's your criteria for what goes *in* and what goes *out*? What makes something scientific and something else not?

"You wanted to take my statement as if I were saying little green monkeys and elves should be considered a reasonable object of scientific pusrsuit."

That is what they logically lead too. What criteria do you propose to exclude the study of little green monkeys and elves from science? Why are you inclined to rule them out when it comes to science? Just because we have not seen elves doesn't mean they don't exist. You and your ilk would like to force science into your own little hermetically-sealed genie bottle, but I say, let's study Elves! You have already said that physical evidence isn't necessary, so that isn't a problem. Science is not at liberty to declare the ultimate truth about the lives of Elves, but that doesn't mean they won't be able to in the future. Matter exists, therefore there are Elves.

"Science is not at liberty to rule out the possibility that God really did create the heavens and the earth and sustains them."

And, as has been repeatedly been told to you, science has no interest in saying that God doesn't exist. Science is by necessity agnostic. Even if there is a God, science has no way to say so.

"Nor is it at liberty to rule out the possibility that hypotheses can some day be formulated, tested, and observations made, to support that potential reality."

When that day comes, then science will look again and reevaluate the proposition. As for now, there is no reason to assume that any test will be forthcoming.

You seem to be equating science with Truth. You want to have science be anything that is true. Something can be true and still be outside of science. Science is not a tool for omniscience. It has limits, and those limits are imposed by the nature of the world. We cannot make scientific theories with nonphysical, supernatural causes that can't be tested and can't be falsified. You don't get to change the nature of the universe because YOU don't like the consequences.
479 posted on 11/16/2005 4:49:22 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies ]


To: CarolinaGuitarman
Science is by necessity agnostic.

That is an unscientific, knowledge-throttling contrivance. Science may be atheistic, theistic, or agnostic. The important thing is that its statements accurately portray reality.

532 posted on 11/16/2005 7:37:32 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson