From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-04-01T02:21:47+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] On banning (Was: New presentation on Ruby)

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:50:06PM +0900, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> 
> >On 31 Mar 2007, at 12:49, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
> >>For well over 100 years there used to be an overwhelming consent in
> >>the scientific world to not even consider "design" as part of an
> >>explanation of any observation made. Now the creator is back.
> >
> >Yes, well both sides of that argument are equally as illogical. As far as 
> >I'm aware no one has ever proposed an experiment that can either confirm 
> >or deny the existence of a 'creator', and that makes atheism as much a 
> >religious belief as theism.
> 
> indeed.  i like this way of thinking about it:
> 
> "what science finds to be nonexistent, we must accept as nonexistent; but 
> what
> science merely does not find is a completely different matter... it is quite
> clear that there are many, many mysterious things." -- h.h. the 14th dalai 
> lama

Excellent.  I agree 100%.

On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily means that there's a
whole lot of point trying to shoehorn theology into science, either.
Science is basically about the testable.  Because the existence or
nonexistence of a Creator is not at this time a testable hypothesis,
it's irrelevant to (rigorous) science.  Believe or not on your own time,
and I'll do the same, but I'd prefer that offshoots of Creationism not
be claimed as another field of science.

Woah, that's REALLY off-topic.  I guess I should shut up about that now.
You know my opinion, as stated above.  I'm done now.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"A script is what you give the actors.  A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall