Jesus H Christ
December 29th 05, 04:40 PM
StarDragonNight ]> wrote in
news:f61e0e1e0512290541k45ac68b1ueb5697fa0baa663c@ mail.gmail.com:
> Scientists' theories often seem to rely on premises that require their
> own kind of faith.
"Seem to" isn't "do".
> For example, when it comes to the origin of life,
> most evolutionists adhere to ideas that require faith in certain
> "doctrines."
No, it does not. Faith isn't involved. Competing hypotheses don't
require faith. They require arguments and evidence in their favour.
> Facts are mixed with theories.
You really need to go and study what the scientific process is.
Facts - evidence, observations - are used to evaluate competing
hypotheses. Those hypotheses that pass the scientific process of
observing, further hypothesising and testing then eventually become
theories.
> And when scientists use
> the weight of their authority to impose blind belief in evolution,
Belief in evolution isn't based on 'blind belief' since it's rooted in
fact. The theory of evolution is derived from proposing scientific
explanations to suit the facts. Not the other way around.
> they are in reality implying: 'You are not responsible for your
> morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and
> physics.'
No they are not.
They are *stating* you *are* responsible for your morality because the
biology, chemistry and physics are not enough to completely determine
human behaviour.
Scientific studies of adopted twins have been undertaken to test exactly
this kind of hypothesis. Nurture trumps nature, most of the time.
> Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe 'there
> is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless
> indifference.'
The universe is indifferent to US. How WE behave to IT is largely up to
our individual intellects.
jesus!
news:f61e0e1e0512290541k45ac68b1ueb5697fa0baa663c@ mail.gmail.com:
> Scientists' theories often seem to rely on premises that require their
> own kind of faith.
"Seem to" isn't "do".
> For example, when it comes to the origin of life,
> most evolutionists adhere to ideas that require faith in certain
> "doctrines."
No, it does not. Faith isn't involved. Competing hypotheses don't
require faith. They require arguments and evidence in their favour.
> Facts are mixed with theories.
You really need to go and study what the scientific process is.
Facts - evidence, observations - are used to evaluate competing
hypotheses. Those hypotheses that pass the scientific process of
observing, further hypothesising and testing then eventually become
theories.
> And when scientists use
> the weight of their authority to impose blind belief in evolution,
Belief in evolution isn't based on 'blind belief' since it's rooted in
fact. The theory of evolution is derived from proposing scientific
explanations to suit the facts. Not the other way around.
> they are in reality implying: 'You are not responsible for your
> morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and
> physics.'
No they are not.
They are *stating* you *are* responsible for your morality because the
biology, chemistry and physics are not enough to completely determine
human behaviour.
Scientific studies of adopted twins have been undertaken to test exactly
this kind of hypothesis. Nurture trumps nature, most of the time.
> Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe 'there
> is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless
> indifference.'
The universe is indifferent to US. How WE behave to IT is largely up to
our individual intellects.
jesus!