jkilmon at historian.net
Tue Jun 15 11:04:42 EDT 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
To: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon at historian.net>
Cc: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph at email.com>; "Hebrew"
<b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Eden
> On 15/06/2004 06:55, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> >To: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph at email.com>
> >Cc: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 4:47 AM
> >Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Eden
> >>On 14/06/2004 22:19, Karl Randolph wrote:
> >>>Dear Peter:
> >>>Now that you bring in science……
> >>>This is not a claim that ”creation science“ is science. It is not
> >for the same reasons evolution is not science.
> >>I agree with you, more or less. Certainly evolution in terms of
> >>mechanisms is no more scientific than creationism because both are based
> >>on unfalsifiable speculation.
> >Again, as a scientist AND a Semitist, I will resist the temptation to
> >address ignorance of science in a forum designed for the discussion of
> >linguistics. I will only correct the error....the Theory of Evolution is
> >indeed falsifiable, otherwise it would not be elevated to the level of
> >certainity of a theory. It is just that after 150 years of collective
> >that the theory explains, not ONE has YET falsified it. ...
> Maybe. Maybe it is still called a theory, rather than a fact (at least
> by careful scientists), because it has not yet been verified.
That's because there is a misunderstanding by laymen, Pete, on what is meant
by the term "theory" in science. The scientific definition is actually the
highest level of certainty following a LAW and there have been no new laws
in a very long time. A theory, in science, is a construction that explains
all of the facts (in this case thousands of facts) and from which certain
predictions can be made. I don't think the Theory of Gravity or the Theory
of Relativity have yet to be verified.
> deliberately restricted my comments to the *mechanisms* of evolution. In
> 150 years no one as far as I know has put forward plausible *mechanisms*
> by which random mutations can produce the complex and beneficial
> structures which natural selection can favour. Correct me if I am wrong,
> off list.
Well, yes, you are wrong and we can discuss it on another list designed for
this if you wish.
> >... Hopefully, y'all
> >know a LOT more about Hebrew than you do science. Let's stick with the
> Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew