From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: where is a copy of 'evidence that demands a verdict'
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:32:39 GMT

zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.134313.19779@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>>It requires an element of faith to believe in current evolutionary 
>>theory as well.  Some have labeled it "from fish to philosopher."

>Wes makes the same error about science that just about all non-scientists 
>and not a few scientists make these days.  Of course it would be an act of 

"Error" is a loaded word.  As you yourself point out, scientists are
beginning to realize precisely how important "faith" or "paradigm-view"
or whatever you want to call it, is to what they do.  Your "definition"
of what science does is pretty much your opinion only, and the number of
people in the scientific field who agree with you is shrinking daily.
When book reviews in "Science" magazine can refer to the scientific method
as an inaccurate and outdated falsehood, you know that things are not
what we once thought they were.

>faith to believe current evolutionary theory was true in an absolute sense.  
>This isn't what science does.  What science does is to say:  current 
><theory of X> is the best fit we can find to the facts and provides 
>the best predictive power, but of course it's subject to change if we get 
>new evidence.

Again, try to find people who agree with you.  People who actually do
science for a living.  The camp is splitting up.  Thomas Kuhn started the
questioning, and the rebellion has been growing ever since within the
scientific community.  You may be able to get as high as a 60-40 split
in your favor, but don't even try to pretend that the religion of science
is the monolithic block of its youth.  Science is undergoing it's own
Reformation.  You happen to belong to the moral equivalent of the RC.
But the Protestant camp is very real, and much more significant than you
would like.

>Now if you look at religion, how good a fit to the known facts is it?  How 
>much predictive power does it give you?  Are you willing to adjust the 
>theory in the light of new evidence?

Why is that a pre-requisite?  You're attempting to stuff a scientific
definition of how the world should be viewed onto a non-scientific 
outlook.  Don't impose your values on other people.  Don't try to make
a monolithic religious outlook (science) the standard by which all
world views are judged.  You are just as biased and chauvanistic as you
claim the more-established religions are.

>Incidentally, I hear only 3 miracle cures at Lourdes are recognised by the 
>Catholic church - this must be well below statistical expectation od 
>spontaneous remission: this God guy's not so nice, is he?

You also don't understand what the word "miracle" means.  It doesn't mean
"spontaneous remission".  If a cure can be logically attributed to 
spontaneous remission, it is.  A miracle is only declared when there is
no evidence for any other possible explanation - i.e. the illness in 
question has never before been known to undergo spontaneous remission,
medical experts have absolutely no explanation for why the illness is no
longer in evidence, etc.  The team which studies cures at Lourdes contains
doctors, whose sole purpose is to weed out any cases which may reasonably
be attributed to the normal biological healing process.

And I think a God who was kind enough to provide such a powerful normal
biological healing process is absolutely wonderful.  

>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
>|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Steve Kellmeyer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion