Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

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 science
> > >      
> 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 FACTS
> 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. Anyway, I 
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.

> ... Hopefully, y'all
> know a LOT more about Hebrew than you do science.  Let's stick with the
> Hebrew.
>  

Agreed.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/