From: "Gary Britt" 

All I'm trying to say or really get the science people to recognize is that
what they think is absolutely proven about evolution isn't really proven in
the sense that it can be directly observed and measured and that therefore
there is some amount of *belief in the unknown* which is the same thing as
*faith*.  The science types seem to like to ridicule religious faith, but
are blind to the fact that they have their *faith* as regards some of these things.

Gary

"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:43790739$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> It's implicit in science. But most scientific theory is known to be 'good'
> in the general sense. Imperfect but not 'untrue'.
>
> There's much more than 'circumstantial evidence' for evolution. We've got
> forensics and everything!
>
> Paul
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:4378cdc0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >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
> >
>
>

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