Three more
The hatred in this country that emanates primarily from liberal politicians is on display in the O.J. Simpson case. Cal Thomas, a popular columnist from Tribune Media, encapsulates the vengeful thinking in his comment, "In the matter of Orenthal James Simpson, justice was a little late, but last Friday -- 13 years after justice was delayed in a Los Angeles double murder trial -- it refused to be denied in a Las Vegas courtroom." Can you say, "Double jeopardy?"
I have supported President Bush for eight years, but I must take issue with his recent assertion that, "I don't think [Creation is] incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution." Proof? Then why is it called the theory of evolution? (Before you are tempted to say it -- yes, there are many unanswered questions about creationism, too. Take your pick -- theory or faith. Or is that the same thing?)
It has been several years since I had the power to hire and fire, but today, if I had employees, they would be told that anyone who joins the "gay-out" tomorrow, protesting the majority will of the people of the State of California, need not return to work thereafter. How's that for liberal meanness?
posted by Don, American Idle @ 11:23 AM
7 Comments:
It is called a theory because that is what the word means in science. There simply is nothing higher than a theory. A theory is an explanation of a series of data. So, for instance, we have the General Theory of Relativity. We have Quantum Theory.
In the case of Quantum theory, we have data that fits the theory to within an astonishing degree of precision, I believe the analogy is "to within the width of a human hair in the distance from here to the sun". However, as it is an explanation for a series of data, we call it a theory, and creationists don't rant on that it is "just a theory".
Similarly, we have literally mountains of evidence that supports evolutionary biology and not a single piece that contradicts it.
I note you have carefully avoided the word "proof."
Yes, I have. Because proof is not used in science. Only in mathematics and liquor. In science we deal in evidence, not proof.
What's that, Voodoo? Anything that can't be proven doesn't exist.
Once again, you show your ignorance. The concept of proof is for mathematics, not science. May I suggest you try reading Khune or Popper?
Science deals in evidence! Mathematics deals in proof.
So, we can't say that gravity is proven to be true? If there's one thing I'm ready to believe. . .
Well, no. We can't. For all we know, our ideas about gravity could be utterly wrong. That is why scientists never stop looking for data. We might find, one day, an example of gravity acting completely differently than we would expect from our theories. In mathematics, once something is proven, then it is true for all time. Science does not work like that.
And, to cut off the obvious next step; yes, people ARE looking at the data that comes in with regard to the theory of evolution, and every single piece of data gathered so far fits that theory. *IF* someone was able to get some evidence that showed evolutionary biology was wrong they would be a hero. They would be the greatest name we have in science in the early 21st century. They would be able to take their pick of any chair of any biology department in the world. Scientists would be over the moon, the new areas of research opened up would be phenomenal. But, that has not happened yet, and the people who are least likely to find such evidence are creationists.
Post a Comment
<< Home