Replies

I don't have a narrow view of the world, I have very broad view of the world, I look at the scientific evidence and decide based on that. I don't have a view of the world that is based on a book that someone has convinced me is the word of god or whatever.

Book is right, narrow view of the world, Evolution is the best theory that fits the facts, broad view. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Sclock science see their own sclock existence---world!

Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress(no evolution...none---ever...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH--scientific expertise(not evo--whack moonie marx-darwin-zombie swill)!

Science/reality is anti-possibilty(infinite/irrational)...

Science has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite/rational)---

Science must limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world!

I don't have a narrow view of the world, I have very broad view of the world, I look at the scientific evidence and decide based on that. I don't have a view of the world that is based on a book that someone has convinced me is the word of god or whatever.

Actually, you look at interpretations of data (the scientific evidence), and you deside based off of that. There's nothing wrong with that. However, there is still a difference between the scientific evidence, and the interpretation of that evidence. As for the 'book', there's historical evidence helping to lead to it's own validity. I'm willing to accept that there might be more to Reality then what materialism claims. And such interesting modern theories as QM seem to suggest that there's far more out there then what observe (or might even be able to observe). You seem to infer that believing in such a thing as the Bible, and believing in science, is exlusionary. I would have to dissagree with you. Allowing for the possibility of something more then materlistic theories doesn't exactly strike me as narrow minded; granted that the possibility isn't illogical, and has at least an average validity.

Book is right, narrow view of the world, Evolution is the best theory that fits the facts, broad view. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Interpretation (human interpretation, if I might add) of bones is right, narrow view of the world. Evolution does support the facts...as far as actual observable facts go (organisms change). And historical evolution may be fairly valid as far as interprations of the evidence goes. However, what's narrow about the belief in historical evolution (from a good portion of evolutionists that I've seen), is that they claim it can be the only valid theory. This isn't being very objective, or open minded, imho.

-The Hajman-