COSMO@TRIUMFER (02/13/90)
>On the other hand, 'facts' supporting theories of evolution often are >contradictory - what is 'fact' one day is not 'fact' the next. Makes one >wonder which of today's 'facts' will be tomorrow's fiction! Ya, ya, ya (*snore*). Evolution is a THEORY based on empiricism and induction, and any real scientist knows that. It gets a hard push because the evidence for it is much much larger than the evidence against, but only people who don't really understand the epistomological basis of science push evolution as a 'fact'. The whole nature of science is that OF COURSE what we believe to be facts one day may be disproven the next... that's why scientists keep looking. What do you want them to do, sit on their behinds once they've got what they believe to be a perfect understanding and stop checking? Yeesh, if scientists did that they never would have developed quantum theory and discovered relativity, because they thought they had a perfect system before the turn of the century. If a scientist says, 'the empirical evidense does not support a literal six day creation', then you can choose to believe it or ignore it or what- ever you want. Besides, along with others, I really don't see what the beef is about taking Genesis as an allegory, as long as it preserves the essential building blocks of the faith, which is that man, by his nature, is alienated from God, and that a means is required to reconcile it. Peace David