RE: Evolution Statement (corrected)

From: Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 09 2001 - 21:54:45 EST

  • Next message: Keith B Miller: "Re: Evolution Statement"

    I would not use the term historical science nor forensic science if I did not
    think there was no scientific elements in such disciplines. I for one do not
    use the common terms of "social sciences" nor "political science." I rather
    exchange the word "science" by the word "study." Man's reasoning ability can
    be applied to non-scientific as well as scientific topics. Let us not confuse
    reasoning with science only. Ask any biologist if they would like to do
    biology the way a physicist does physics. The subject matter of historical
    science and physics may be the same---since we could have done the physics if
    we were there at the time--the essential difference is that one deals with
    unique events whereas physics is an experimental science. Anyone that says
    that evolution is a fact is claiming to have been there. One can infer that a
    Big Bang may have happened, because of the expansion of the galaxies, but I
    can assure you that if tomorrow we find out that that assumption is wrong,
    then many cosmologists will come forward with alternative explanations and
    theories. I am convinced that, short of Christ telling us in His second coming
    that evolution is nonsense, there is no way of disproving the claims of the
    evolutionists. Moorad

    >===== Original Message From Michael Roberts <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>
    =====
    > >
    > > Then do experiments to test the validity of your claims. But do not rest
    >on
    >> what nature has already done since that is history not science.
    >>
    >
    >
    >I get sick of those who cannot/will not recognise historical science
    >and assume physics is the only true science.Was it Bragg who said "all
    >science is physics the rest is stamp-collecting". What Moorad does is to
    >assume that science must always be experimental and simply ignores what
    >William Whewell called the palaeoaetiological sciences way back in c1840.
    >
    >Historical and experimental sciences have different but overlapping
    >methodologies. There ARE parallels between historical science and human
    >history as both depend on ancient evidence. One artefacts are used in
    >history we have moved away from relying on human recorders (as if an
    >eyewitness is always reliable)
    >
    >I cant help feeling that Moorad and others simply balnk out historical
    >science
    >
    >Michael
    >>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 09 2001 - 21:55:44 EST