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

To: stremba

that a scientific theory should not be faulted for failing to account for qualities that are difficult to treat scientifically.

Perhaps.

But then, one would think that PERHAPS such "scientists" would have the logical consistency and integrity to AVOID pontificating as though their methods were so robustly relevant, useful, functional, fitting etc. as to allow rational grandstanding of the most extreme illogical and grandiose lengths.

In other words, YA COULDA FOOLED ME! The religious fervor of said SCIENTISTS doesn't sound at all LIKE THEY appreciate the limitations of their "SCIENCE."


1,284 posted on 12/30/2004 5:35:35 AM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1281 | View Replies ]


To: Quix

I don't know. I've studied science pretty extensively, and I have yet to see a scientific theory of justice (or love or any of the other qualities mentioned in the original post). Evolution is not a theory designed to explain these issues. It is meant to explain the diversity of life, not the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the weather in Siberia or any other phenomenon that creationists want to bring up in an attempt to discredit evolution.


1,287 posted on 12/30/2004 6:38:06 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1284 | 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