I just had to check again
Re: I don't know about you.... -- NAR	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: dant ® 12/22/2004, 13:16:46 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

I took the damn test again just so I could find the place where you guys made that choice. It is the combination of two questions that gets the bullet. After I got there I discovered a FAQ addressing this point. I imagine this is really going to get on NAR's nerves. I look forward to your comments. Here it is: 3. Evolutionary theory has been proved certainly and irrevocably. This one catches the atheists, and boy, they don't like it. The problem emerges (it's a bullet) if one accepts that evolutionary theory is true, but want certain and irrevocable proof for God before accepting God's existence. Well, sorry guys, you don't get certain and irrevocable proof in science - and if you think that you do, then it is you that doesn't understand how science works, not us! The point is, of course, that irrevocable certainty is not required before it is reasonable to accept scientific propositions as being true (i.e., as being facts). Here's Stephen Jay Gould on this matter: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." Modified by dant at Wed, Dec 22, 2004, 13:23:40

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

I don't happen to agree with their conclusion --- NAR ( Wed, Dec 22, 2004, 13:31:03 ) ( 1555 bytes ) +1 I'm irredeemably reckless ! --- Lexy ( Wed, Dec 22, 2004, 14:24:02 ) ( 329 bytes ) +1 Re: I'm irredeemably reckless ! --- Cynthia ( Thu, Dec 23, 2004, 14:53:55 ) ( 338 bytes ) +1 Thanks Cynthia.... --- Lexy ( Thu, Dec 23, 2004, 15:24:01 ) ( 983 bytes ) +1 No, Xmas is great --- Tempora ( Thu, Dec 23, 2004, 17:17:20 ) ( 1790 bytes ) +3 Re: No, Xmas is great --- Lexy ( Thu, Dec 23, 2004, 17:40:05 ) ( 32 bytes ) That really was a beautiful sermon. --- Jim ( Thu, Dec 23, 2004, 19:11:19 ) ( 124 bytes ) +1 Yes, not bad after the Xmas party. --- Tempora ( Tue, Dec 28, 2004, 12:17:05 ) ( 776 bytes ) +1 What's that? --- Jim ( Tue, Dec 28, 2004, 15:01:14 ) ( 720 bytes ) +1 What's the "subtle truth"? --- cq ( Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 12:40:38 ) ( 600 bytes ) +1 Good point, Chris! --- Jim ( Mon, Jan 03, 2005, 01:05:32 ) ( 533 bytes ) Re: No, Xmas is great - so SANTA is Lord? --- cq ( Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 14:25:26 ) ( 1297 bytes )