From: "Gary Britt" 

I wouldn't have a problem with just a simple reminder that all scientific
theories (and not limited to evolution) are not based upon direct
observation of the things about which the theories draw conclusions and
therefore they remain subject to some possibility that they could later
turn out to be untrue or imperfect explanations of that which they seek to
explain.

In a sense all convictions of circumstantial evidence on done on *faith* or
*belief* that the circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gary

"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:4378c0fd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> The book in question is 'Of Pandas and People'.
>
> The second part of your paragraph is simple dogma. On the one hand it's a
> statement of the obvious, on the other it's a statement of ignorance. Why
> not propose a general 'theory warning' for all science? 'Quantum Mechanics
> is a theory that cannot be proven by direct observation'... If schools are
> not teaching science well, so pupils get no understanding of how it's done
> and the history involved, then that's a general problem. The concentration
> on challenging evolution with what are often outright falsehoods reveals
the
> religious fundamentalism at work.
>
> An algorithmic process is not a hypothesis, assumption or theory. The
> hypothesis is (in this case) that this process applies in the natural
world.
> All the evidence supports the hypothesis and we get a good theory.
>
> Do you think you can never convict a criminal other than through 'faith'?
>
> Paul
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:4378b14f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >I don't think I would support "creationist" materials in
schools.  I'd
have
> > to see them to know for sure.  That's different from acknowledging in a
> > simple sentence that evolution of modern man from non-living materials
> > over
> > millions of years is a theory that can not be proven by direct
> > observation.
> >
> > Algorithmic process?  Hypotheses?  These are working assumptions.
> > Assumptions and theories are attempts to explain that which can not be
> > confirmed via direct observation.  Things that can't be directly
observed
> > require some amount of *faith* or *belief* of one or more unobserved
> > events
> > having happened.  That is *faith*.  Its just not *faith* in God.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
> > news:4378a712{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> There is plenty of observation of one species becoming another. You
just
> >> have to look.
> >>
> >> There's an argument for evolution, it's an algorithmic process that can
> >> be
> >> abstractly proven. There is then much evidence for the actual effects
in
> > the
> >> natural world. You're making the classic mistake of thinking 'that
seems
> >> a
> >> bit unlikely, I'll leap direct to supernature' when you have no
> >> considered
> >> basis for 'unlikely'.
> >>
> >> The Dover trial is surely well known? A school board mandated some
> > reference
> >> to ID in science lessons and bought a bunch of creationist literature
for
> >> students to 'consult'. Some parents sued. See
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/
> >> for transcripts and other materials.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
>
>

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