[b-hebrew] Dan (was: Where Was Jacob's Ladder)
yitzhaksapir at gmail.com
Sun Nov 11 01:48:56 EST 2007
On Nov 11, 2007 4:02 AM, K Randolph wrote:
> > .... If one's approach is that of modern science, ....
> Which definition of "modern science"? The unanimous definition given
> by physicists, biologists, chemists and other scientists from when I
> was in college? Or the post-modern one?
"How often do I have to repeat..." that your definition as you provide it for
various natural sciences above from when you were in college appears to
depend on a misunderstanding of the biology, physics, etc. textbooks that
you read. We can debate how appropriate it is to use a definition from a
book about a natural science for other sciences such as linguistics or
biblical research. But you yourself admit that in that biology textbook the
definition given for science -- as you understand it, of course -- and the way
evolution is described in that same textbook conflict and are inconsistent.
Yet we know one of the books' authors viewed evolution as completely
consistent with the definition of science. You would rather assume that
the author is inconsistent. I think you just misunderstand the definition
and are explicitly reading into the provided definition things that are not
there. Thus there is no unanimous definition vs. post-modern definition,
there is only a definition you misunderstood vs. a definition you now
understand. It seems you adopt the definition of science in the natural
sciences textbook only because you misunderstood it.
More information about the b-hebrew