> > Science says that there are things in the God realm which Science is > > unqualified to comment on. > > Actually science says that there are scentences that have no > meaning/interpretation within science. Nothing more. But this is not a > consequence of using the word 'God'. Agree. But God related things form a subset of such. > > What science doesn't > > have to say (indeed shouldn't think it can say) is that God related > > matters must be completely ignored when attempting to work towards an > > understanding of something. > IMHO science does not claim (or should no claim) to understand. It > predicts, nothing more. There isn't even a scientific (falsifiable) > interpretation of 'understanding' (which diffirs from 'predicting'). OK - my terminology was sloppy. The important point was that the argument "we know that Y must have arisen from X, as Y exists and there is no other choice ...." is not a scientifically supportable one. Science legitimately says "Let's propose means by which Y may have arisen from X and then propose falsifiable experiments to test this model." Substitute eg "Life as we know it" for Y and "nothing whatsoever" for X as an example. > > Evolution is one such theory that now > > demands that it be called fact and that its acolytes blindly > > believe in its certain ability to be complete, despite the fact that > > is arguable whether it qualifies as science under Popper's definition. > IMHO a scientific theory should never claim to be 'a fact'. It is just > 'not yet falisfied dispite significant effort to do so'. Outside science > one may tend to rely on such a theory being a fact, but that has nothing > to do with science istelf. And yet, the more beleagured and poorly truly-scientifically supported a theory becomes, the more stridently it's supporters will demand that it must be recognised as self evident truth that need not and must not be questioned. NON-Plate Tectonics was one such model that took many decades of chipping away at before the "now self evident truth" of Plate Tectonics became the latest holy writ. It would take even more effort now to dislodge Plate Tectonics than to install it. The in many parts non-falsifiable "Macro" Evolution (as opposed to the falsifiable models of natural selection) is a similar theory that is at the "we demand your unquestioning belief in our holy truth" stage. Even though some of those who may be expected to be its chiefest advocates, such as Crick & Watson, have long ago bailed out, despite being staunch atheists and sought "special pleading" in the form of unknown aliens, many still cling to the unfalsifiable model and claim the cloak of science to protect their stance. There's no shame in something not being amenable to falsifiable modelling - it's just the way some things are. Even if what you wish to study is a facet of physical reality (whatever that is :-) ) it may be separated from you by time, distance, scale or some other gap that make it essentially inaccessible. The "shame" lies in people insisting that they can bend science to make their study scientific. Advancing knowledge can make some things increasingly accessible that previously weren't (eg to give a less controversial example - studies of planets around other stars) but some things are currently beyond the range of our best measurements and some things always will be. Things removed in time can be some of the most intractable. "Tail chasing" often results from attempts to extend our grasp beyond the reasonable. eg strata dating fossils dating strata dating fo .... . Can you tell me how old this sample is? What starta did you find it in? Why do you need to know that? So that we can interpret the results correctly. Known 50 year old lava (people saw it deposited) dates as millions of years. Samples from freshly dead animal tissues date at thousands of years. etc. > > And, re personal proof: >> ... you can listen to them and observe them and then > > take what steps may come to seem appropriate to allow > > "things" to work on your own internal proofs... > Of course, but neither the other persons internal beliefs/proofs nor > mine are open to unambiguous third-party verification. Ah - but they are. But it has to be done one person at a time :-) ie you may verify to *your own* satisfaction with falsifiable experiments the 'truth' of others' personal proofs. Others cannot share your proofs - they must in turn build their own falsifiable models (which they may borrow from you but must personally own) and must personally test them to their own satisfaction. I am well aware that this is not "science as we know it", but it has similarities. Unlike true science where others may perform the experiment and you can study their results without becoming involved, personal models require that each person do it for themself. It may not be science, but each can be personally satisfied with the 'proof'. Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.