At 08:14 PM 07/24/2000 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>One thing I overlooked....
>
>From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>
> >Alternative explanations always accompany a given set of data. Martians
> >also could have deposited the presents. This explanation fully explains
> >the observation....
>
>I don't think any explanation ever *fully* explains an observation.
>Observations can only be explained in terms of initial conditions and
>theories, which themselves require explanation, and so on back to the Big
>Bang and the Theory of Everything (and beyond?).
I think that explanations can "fully" explain a given set of data. This
does not mean that the explanation is correct. Say you hear a loud rumble
and crash in you attic. The explanation that gremlins are bowling upstairs
fully explains your observation, but it is not likely to be correct.
So, back to my original post regarding Behe's model. It is a weak argument
of his opponents to claim that he does not provide evidence for ID. He
does. You need to debated him using a different argument.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 15:24:29 EDT