wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 23:40:22 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:ve01o2hql815l8sqp8m05lu2kqc5phc68k@
4ax.com:

All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why
"evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from
hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above,
acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not
absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement
regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html


The jump to natural macroevolution is a tad tougher, and this is why it
is still a theory, and not a fact. However, it is a pretty strong
theory.

Sorta like an "untestable" hypothesis that you've expounded as
truth...

We have not, however, seen the finger of God come down and instill our
corporeal asses with pneumae. This calls for something that lives well
outside our physical explanation of what is, our model, our Kuhnian
paradigm, if you will.

I won't! I won't!

Just because whoever "we" might include besides yourself haven't seen
something is no impetus upon me to accept it as an absolute. Neither
you or I (or anyone else) have seen evolution, either. Yet you choose
to accept it as an absolute insofar as when compared to "intelligent
design" while I choose to simply accept it as the most likely occurrence
based on currently available information.

To have intelligent design make sense, first we
have to assume that given a primordial ooze, energy, billions of years of
random events, and that "survival of the fittest" deal that Darwin was
so fond of, evolution on its own (or some of its incarnations, such as
saltatory evolution) is not sufficient to produce that which already is.

Again, whoever "we" might be could well be so encumbered. I'm not.
While I don't have to consider some form of intelligent design or even
"creation" as a "most likely" occurrence, I choose not to be so
close-minded as to eliminate the merest possibility of it having
occurred. And I'm certainly not going to let the fact that whoever the
hell "we" might be, you, or anyone else hasn't personally witnessed
something influence my thinking on that subject.

Then, we have to incorporate some godhead, which lies entirely out of our
best concepts of the physical world, and invoke a miracle.

No, "we" don't, and since of whom "our" consists is unknown, a statement
regarding their "best concept" of anything is meaningless. IAC,
religion and "God(s)" are not intertwined by definition, only by
individual perception. It is entirely possible to be a religious
atheist or believe in (a) "God" and have no religion. You are
attempting to attack another's theory with your own perception of fact
while simultaneously admitting that your "fact" isn't, in fact, _fact_.

We'd have to

No, "we'd" not have to do jack ****.

throw out just about every vestige of Descarte's concept of methological
skepticism, upon which most, if not all, of our knowledge has been based
for centuries.

Yet again, no, "we" wouldn't, but if evidence surfaces that indicates it
needs to be thrown out, AFAIAC, out it goes. But I think you may wish
to familiarize yourself more completely with Descartes.

The last few sentences are what make intelligent design fall squarely
into the religion column. I do not pay science teachers to teach
religion.

But you will pay them to teach Descartes, at least his work that you
personally canonize...interesting...again, you may wish to become more
familiar with his writings.

Good God, you are stupid.

Wolfgang