UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 7 to Talk Back 86
Science is not what Rob wants it to be

by: JT

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.

Re: Discussion 5

Yes Rob, mine is a religious view - as long as we are referring to agnosticism.

But, no matter times how often you repeat a false assertion, it does not become true. Regardless of your claims, science is not a religion nor a religious view.

Re: Discussion 6

Further, you may wish to redefine science, but your new definition would not reflect what scientists do and what they discover. Your definition of science would not be science. Fortunately, you are not Humpty-Dumpty free to redefine terms willy-nilly.

By the way, contrary to what you apparently believe, (along with the overwhelming majority of your fellow creationists and fellow IDers) the theory of evolution makes no claims or assertions about the origin of life nor the origin of the Universe.

I feel no need to rationalize your ambitions, and I don't know why you would suggest I might do so. Rationalizing your ambitions... that's your problem.