Scientific Fact versus Interpretation

Hello, Faith.

quote:

---

Henry the VIII WAS King of England. That IS a fact. And if we have to raise the question, even have whole threads at this late date in the EvC controversy, in order to establish how we can be sure that is a fact, then I say this whole debate enterprise is a pathetic joke (which of course I think anyway).

---

Actually, this joke is exactly the type of sophomoric epistemic problems that creationists try to use to discredit the theory of evolution or the evidence for an old earth, which I suspect is Modulous' point. In fact:

quote:

---

There is NOT enough evidence for it to be unreasonable not to accept the OE interpretation (OR the common-descent-of-all-life-from-common-ancestor-back-in-the-Primordial-Ooze interpretation either). What I have identified as interpretation is clearly imaginative interpretation that has no way of being verified or falsified -- the whole tipsy scheme of long-lived "environments."

---

Now you are telling the exact same joke.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Probably just as well, Faith.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi, Ratel.I know how you feel. A number of members here seem to have a chip on their shoulders. Faith isn't the only one, and there is at least one on the non-Christian side as well.My suggestion is that if you decide to continue to respond to the posts of these people, then just ignore the indignation and insults and just address the actual issues of the debate.Of course, just ignoring those posters work also.