Re: How long must we wait?

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:35:59 -0600

At 12:28 PM 12/14/96 -0800, Art wrote:
>Steve says:
>
>>With this Baconian definition of science, creationists can point to the
>>fact that evolution is not a fact, but a theory, and since theories have
>>no place in this inductivist view of science, creationists argue that
>>evolution is not science. But they use an archaic Baconian version of
>>science that, as I explained above, is really unworkable.
>
>While I agree with your assertions and divisions, I would submit that not
>only ICR views science the way you assert, but all scientists view their
>science this way. It is only the science of others that is viewed as
>subjective and preconceived.

This is an interesting assertion. Could you explain why you believe this?

Witness the willingness of (22?) Nobel
>Laureates to sign a statement asserting that Evolution is a FACT,
>antithetical for someone subscribing to a non-Baconian view of science.

Do I interpret your meaning that subscribing to evolution as fact represents
a Baconian view of science? If this what you meant, could you explain why
you think this? The connection escapes me.

Thanks.

Steve
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
____________________________________________________________