From: Robert Comer 

>Tim Boyer's message in this thread with the quote from Stephen J. Gould is
>closer to my thoughts.  If there is a theory which better fits the facts
>and is supported by empirical evidence with hypotheses and real world
>tests which fully support those hypotheses then I'm sure it will be widely
>accepted.

That's fair, just don't think everyone think the same, that's all I'm saying.

>That isn't, by the way, meant to impugne faith.  There is a place for
>faith and there is a place for science and scientific theories.  The
>former is found in churches (where they don't teach science) and the
>latter are found in schools where they shouldn't be teaching faith).

I don't disagree, but there can be a middle ground at the personal level.

--
Bob Comer



On Sat, 05 May 2007 16:50:22 -0400, "John Beamish"
 wrote:

>Tim Boyer's message in this thread with the quote from Stephen J. Gould is
>closer to my thoughts.  If there is a theory which better fits the facts
>and is supported by empirical evidence with hypotheses and real world
>tests which fully support those hypotheses then I'm sure it will be widely
>accepted.
>
>That isn't, by the way, meant to impugne faith.  There is a place for
>faith and there is a place for science and scientific theories.  The
>former is found in churches (where they don't teach science) and the
>latter are found in schools where they shouldn't be teaching faith).
>
>On Sat, 05 May 2007 13:09:59 -0400, Robert Comer
> wrote:
>
>>> In short, dismissing something called a Theory simply because it is
>>> *called* a theory is intellectual "Luddite-ism".
>>
>> Aye, but thinking of it as fact is the same.
>>

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