Re: cs lewis

["Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>]

> > There's nothing wrong with looking for evidence to see whether or not
> > it supports a hypothesis.  But if you start with an unfalsifiable
> > hypothesis, which is more or less what "creation scientists" do, it
> > ain't science.
>
> And evolutionists never do this...?

Whether or not they *ever* do it is not the point.  "Creation science", by
its very definition, is designed to produce certain results; no matter
what the evidence might be, it can be interpreted in a way that will, to
their eyes, support their beginning hypothesis.  First they will say there
are no transitional forms, thus, God must have created all species
separately and independently.  Then, when you find a transitional form and
point it out to them, they say, "Oh, that's not a transitional form;
that's just a different species that happens to share characteristics of
two other species."  Never mind that the transitional form may be
*exactly* the sort of thing evolutionary science predicted we would find,
and never mind that, if it *isn't*, evolutionary science will change to
fit the evidence; the creationist's hypothesis can never be falsified.

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
      Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/

---

References:

• Re: cs lewis
• From: Kelvin Bailey <prestokelvo at yahoo_com>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: creation science
• Next by Date: Re: points all her own, way up high
• Prev by thread: Re: cs lewis
• Next by thread: Re: cs lewis
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread