jkilmon at historian.net
Tue Jun 15 09:39:25 EDT 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph at email.com>
To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Eden
> Dear Peter:
> Now that you bring in science..
> When I was in college, one of my profs was a missionary for evolution, and
to aid in his efforts to convert all of us to believing his religion, he had
us use a biology textbook by Dr. George Gaylord Simpson. In its
introduction, the textbook had a multipage definition of science complete
with examples and counter examples. Briefly, science depends on observation,
but in order for that observation to be scientifically relevant, it must be
a repeatable observation. Upon noting patterns in observations, hypothesis
are made which, upon testing by more, repeatable observations, are developed
into theories. Of course, you know that.
> After making that definition, Dr. Simpson defined evolution as the theory
that teaches that all life are descended by natural means from simple,
common ancestors over a long period of time. (I know that's not an exact
quote, but it is pretty close.) Though he called it "a scientific fact", it
violates the definition of science he had just spend pages developing. That
theory is not scientific at all. Evolution is a perfect example of "bad
> I do not know of a single "evidence" for evolution that does not, at least
in part, depend on presuppositions that cannot be observed-geologic
stratigraphy (Charles Lyell, before Darwin), radiometric dating, phylogeny,
etc.-every one depends at least in part on inobservable presuppositions.
> This is not a claim that "creation science" is science. It is not science
for the same reasons evolution is not science.
I really have to put more effort into resisting the temptation to reply to
those outrageously ridiculous claims made by posters who are out of their
element...because it doesn't stop them anyway. I will say, however, that
the ignorance of science did not prevent a soapbox that, no matter how
absurd the claims, has no place in a forum for the discussion of Hebrew.
That is the good thing about discussing the nuances of the Hebrew
language...you cannot fake it...like Karl's "understanding" of a scientific
More information about the b-hebrew