I appreciate your point, but it is pedantic. Most of us will say of what
we firmly believe that it is true. The fact is that I cannot prove the
existence of God, nor that of the Trinity, nor that through faith I have
been granted eternal life. But I do not hesitate to affirm with Paul, "I
know whom I have believed..." (II Timothy 1:12) with its implication of
truth. Similarly, few hesitate, except when being almost excessively
precise, to refer to the best available scientific theory as true, even
though we know that all such theories are subject to review and revision.
There is a problem, obviously, when someone insists that such a looser
usage must express a formally precise meaning. This latter is almost like
insisting on a precise measurement rather that a value with standard
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:39:07 -0600 "j burg" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> This is to Tim, who wrote: "But it is absolutely worthless, from my
> point of view, to hear that Darwinism isn't the whole story and in
> same breath to assert that WITHIN SCIENCE, Darwinism is absolutely
> true. There is a major blurring going on here ... ."
> The problem is with the word "true." Polkinghorne suggests the term
> "verisimilitude," which recognizes that science never perceives
> "reality," but only what it can catch in its net.
> If I were a TE, then, I'd NEVER assert that Darwinism was "true,"
> that it currentlty passes the verisimilitude test.
> Do you see the difference, or am I still being obscure? Or, maybe,
> some TEs DO assert that Darwinism is "true." I think not.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to email@example.com with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Click to compare life insurance rates. Great rates, quick and easy.
To unsubscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 3 22:55:39 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 03 2008 - 22:55:39 EDT