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

To: freedumb2003
Well, that is pretty honest. Now, tell us all how we put the supernatural into science.

You don't have to : you just don't insist on materialism either a priori or ab initio.

After all, you still have Occam's razor, ECREE, and "well, we just don't know for sure yet" as layered defenses against rampaging theism.

But since you brought it up -- what is your opinion regarding the final two sentences of Lewontin's quote ("It is not that...in the door" from post 3)?

Agree or disagree? Absolutely, or in the interim so as not to bias your judgment of specific experiments or constructs?

Cheers!

36 posted on 10/24/2009 5:40:31 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: grey_whiskers

>>After all, you still have Occam’s razor, ECREE, and “well, we just don’t know for sure yet” as layered defenses against rampaging theism.<<

Well, my FRiend, that may all be well and good. But it is philosophy, not science. The point is that philosophy (and its offshoot, theology), belong in philosophy and the soft arts — not in hard science.

There is nothing that says that ID cannot be presented — it can, as a creation story, not as an operational mechanism in the naturalistic world of science.


39 posted on 10/24/2009 5:57:08 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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