Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The definition of science: What should it be?
subbie
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 28 of 100 (320765)
06-12-2006 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by vitalprikalist
06-10-2006 1:42 PM


Neither creation nor evolution is totally truly science. Neither can be totally proved....
Well, you're half right.
Neither can be "totally proved." However, that has no connection to the first part of the quote. Science never "totally prove[s]" anything. Ever. So the fact that something can't be "totally proved," whatever that might mean, says absolutely nothing about whether it is scientific or not.
Science is about putting forward the best explanation we can based on the evidence we have. Under this standard, evolution is "totally truly science" (I guess, not really sure what this means either) and creationism is totally truly religion.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by vitalprikalist, posted 06-10-2006 1:42 PM vitalprikalist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024