Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!gatech!udel!rochester!pt!isl1.ri.cmu.edu!cycy
From: cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med,talk.rumors,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Chris imitates Life?
Message-ID: <1203@isl1.ri.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 11-Jun-87 20:34:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: isl1.1203
Posted: Thu Jun 11 20:34:06 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 12:50:35 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <283@chemstor.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 53
Keywords: Missing dimension
Xref: mnetor sci.research:170 sci.med:2432 talk.rumors:885 misc.headlines:685

In article <283@chemstor.UUCP>, bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) writes:
> 
> >From: cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young)
> >In article <225@chemstor.UUCP>, bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) writes:
> > 
> >>and randomness.  Either way, I'm not in control,.. right!!  My Bible says God
> >>created the creatures out of the dirt, but he made man in his image.  ( With 
> >>a free will too!)  Somehow, that seems to fit reality a little better in view 
> >>of who I am.  But keep on matching those Chromosomes! 
> >  
> >These types eventually show up everywhere, don't they? Just like weeds.
> 
> 
>      I guess you thought by ripping my last paragraph out from its groundwork
> everyone would forget what was written right before that, and you could draw
> a steriotypical conclusion of who I am for all those incapable of thinking for
> themselves.  It seems that you are also trying to define science for me?

I took what what relevant; I don't remember what else you wrote, except that
the entire aim seemed to be trashing science (see below) for something out of
the Bible.

As far as the question of what science is, I suggest you study it. There is
a large body of work on science and scientific method. I also recommend
reading McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982) for
some interesting arguments about what science is, and a very well done
analysis of the arguments. Try reading Popper. I don't have to define science;
it's already been defined. And one property of science is that it does not
consider non-falsifiable theories as its territory. Included in this class
are supernatural phenomenon. God is supernatural. God is not a scientific
concept. Even if God does exist (and I will not say what my opinion on the
matter is here), God's existence is not scientific concept.

> possible to provide, right?  So why don't you go back and try to provide a
> decent comment on my words before the ones you quoted, because they are quite
> conclusive.  If you consider them, you will find that either there is really
> more to me and you than what we see, or everything is meaningless.
> -------------------------------
> "Who is the greater fool: He that claims to know truth, or the one who scoffs
> while himself searching for it?"  -me

Provide me again with the words, and I will. And I do not disagree that there
may be more to it than that. I don't necessarily agree either. However, science
is not concerned with questions such as "what is the meaning of life?"

As far as scoffing goes, what I saw in your post was the typical creationist
type scoff against science which I've become so familliar with. Quite frankly,
creationism can never be considered science by anybody who understand it. The
Bible just doesn't cut it scientifically speaking. Well, I won't go on. Try
reading the case I mentioned above.
-- 

					-- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu)