Re: On credulity and religion

@#$%!?! (
Sat, 13 Jul 1996 19:26:01 GMT

: supporting evolutionary theory. Accepting something "on faith" suggests that
: no evidence for or against a belief exists, which is simply not true in the
: case of scientific theories. See the FAQs for the details
: regarding evolution.

Sorry, but you still have to take science on faith. There is no proof
the scientific method is the correct method to understand the world,
nor is it manifestly self-evident--otherwise there would be no
discussion. Do you enjoy being ridiculed? If not, perhaps you should be
more diplomatic.

Useful and effective do not make something true. Celestial navigation
is simpler if you assume a heliocentric system. It is effective model
within this field, but its practioners don't inflict the model outside
the field.

: Biblical scholarship, while potentially valuable with regards to moral
: issues, has been a dismal failure at correctly predicting things about

Perhaps you should read it. With the exception of the openning chapters,
it doesn't attempt to explain the physical universe. It is primarily
about morality, law, and a human's relation to society, a diety, the
universe, and himself. Much of you're complaining about is not biblical
but grafted on by the medieval western church.

: If predictive value is the true measure of the merit of ideas, there's simply

If... There are libraries of arguments tucked away inside that conditional.

In mirrored maze he met the Mother, | PO Box 1563
the lost and breathless, lonely brother. | Cupertino, California
Both crone and child, now crying wild, | (xxx)xxx-xxxx 95015
her clinging clay will clothe and smother. | I don't use no smileys