Re: Def'n of Science

Bodester (jbode77@ursa.calvin.edu)
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:23:46 -0500

>>Don't get me wrong, I am not against examining the evidence we have now,
but
>>I sometimes wonder 'just how much can we actually establish?' I hear
people
>>assume evolution has been proven, and others saying it's been disproven:
is
>>either statement valid? CAN either be?
>Science does not deal in absolute proof. But I would be interested in the
evidence that disproved evolution.

So would I in fact. I do think scientists, although not dealing with
absolutes, should be very careful in what they proclaim as truth. With the
issue of the list especially, there are many counterexamples to go with the
examples given by either side of these debates, and unless many or most of
these are accounted for I would say it shouldn't be called truth, possible
or probable maybe, but not truth. I understand how science points to the
past and what happened, but I also understand that we are quite fallible and
our interpretations may easily be off-base.

If you disagree, please speak up. I love being challenged in my beliefs!

Jason