Precisely, mi carnal. The scientific method, when it produces a proof, is
really producing a theory that accounts for the known phenomena. If new
phenomena are discovered that the theory can't account for the proof is
undone. Thus far the theory of evolution by natural selection has been able
to handle everything thrown at it for the past 150 years with only minor
tweaking by way of understanding the mechanisms at work. None of the
alternatives have managed this. Though I rather like the idea that God gave
us the true account in Genesis but structured the world to appear much
older as a test of our faith. In which case science would be the
exploration not of material reality but of a particular fantasy of God's.
As is, "wow, god really wanted us to be tempted to believe in the drift of
tectonic plates over hundreds of millions of years isolating populations of
species which then developed differently. Isn't God interesting?" Hard to
imagine how literalists can avoid this avenue for studying the mind of the
creator.
Mark
At 05:21 PM 5/5/2005, you wrote:
>It's one thing of course to present sufficiently persuasive evidence
>that my dinner is on the table for me to come down and eat it, and
>quite another to *prove* that the table, my dinner and myself exist
>and are in the posited relationship to one another.
>
>Some folks it seems would swear blind that the tasty meal they've just
>eaten wasn't dinner, wasn't on the table, and wasn't eaten by them.
>"Quit fooling around and bring me my *real* dinner".
>
>Making a rigorous distinction between "proof" and "persuasive
>demonstration" is itself no simple matter. I consider the truth of the
>theory of evolution to have been persuasively demonstrated. Tell me
>what would constitute an adequate proof of it or any competing theory,
>and we'll see what can be done in the way of producing something that
>meets that specification.
>
>Dominic
|