Re: virus: Science
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:59:46 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Reed Konsler wrote:

> >From: Martin Traynor <>
> >Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 16:37:39 +0000
> >The fundaligionists (to borrow a phrase from the freak
> >brothers) want evolution to be taught in school only as a theory to
> >explain our existence - not as a fact, and that it should be taught
> >alongside the creationist Genesis worldview.
> Creationism is not a scientific theory...the preponerance of evidence
> refutes it. It is thus not something that should be taught in a science
> class. Now, I'm for redefining and interconnecting subjects. But
> Creationism is not a valid part of biology as that field is currently
> understood

Creationism is really a confusion of a claimed history with science.

> >However, any true scientist must agree that evolution *is* just a
> >theory, albeit one which has a weight of evidence in its favour...
> >implying that one must accept the validity of science and its
> >tenets and techniques before one can accept the theory as being
> >better than any other. But isn't this exactly the same for any
> >religion?
> Sure, but I would argue that the axioms of science are much simpler than
> religious axioms, and even the base asumptions are open to refutation in
> science. Scientists have thrown out the ideas of completly objective
> observation, the continuity of time and space (as well as the continuity of
> or perception of it), and other "central theories", like the big bang are
> under continious scrutiny. This is not a componeent of religion.

NONE of the above examples of 'base assumptions of science' are base
assumptions of science! My most likely candidate for a 'base assumption
of science' is that "the laws we are trying to figure out are applicable
up to obvious breakdowns in space or time [Einsteinian, 'space-time']"
Some impressively uncredible explanations of the formation of fossils, and
outright fraudulent interpretations of a number of 'radioactive clocks',
have been used in order to preserve this assumption when it does not
plausibly apply. [I'm presuming that geological science has not shifted
basic paradigms in these areas since circa 1985.]


/ Kenneth Boyd