From: "Robert Comer" 

> I'm not so sure about that. It's my understanding that all science starts
> with axioms which are simply accepted as being true.

If you want to go back to the first axiom of us actually being here, maybe
so,  but still, I'd call some science fact.

>Arguing for an Intelligent Designer as an axiom fails the test because it's
>more complex than is needed to explain observed phenomena.

I've never made such an argument.    All I'll say on that subject is that
I believe it.

--
Bob Comer


"Tony Williams"  wrote in message
news:437d04aa$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Robert Comer wrote:
>>>I wasn't trying to define "science". Are you claiming
that there is a
>>>scientific fact known with 100% accuracy and certainty?
>>
>>
>> Definitely.
>>
>
> I'm not so sure about that. It's my understanding that all science starts
> with axioms which are simply accepted as being true. Everything else is
> built on top of these assumptions. Ok, they're pretty basic things like "0
> + 1 = 1" and suchlike, but there's still that foundation which has to be
> accepted without proof. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
>
> Note that I'm *not* arguing against the scientific method here, because as
> well as a push to extend theories there's a corresponding push to simplify
> and reduce the number of axioms. Arguing for an Intelligent Designer as an
> axiom fails the test because it's more complex than is needed to explain
> observed phenomena.
>
> --
> Tony

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5