Hi Russell,

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 02:56:58AM +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
> I say there is a hard and fast dividing line [:-)].
> Popper agrees (or, rather, of course, I agree with him).
> Science is where you can model/predict/test and repeat ad infinitum 
> (or nauseum) and refine your model.

> Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be handled by 
> Science as he knows it.

I don't believe that you understand evolution too well. Evolution (and that
word covers a lot of ground) does provide models, makes predictions, and can
be tested. Why do think it doesn't do these things? Do you think geology is
a religion as well?


> >Anyway, it looks that in 15 years fewer bio-tech companies will be 
> >locating
> >in Kanses than other states with better educated citizens.
> 
> beter educated? - maybe. But if better education is compelling 
> children to accept religion as science then this may be far more of a 
> phantasm than you might expect.

I find it really odd you calling evolution a religion (this feeling comes
mostly from reading your posts on the piclist). I will grant you that
evolution isn't as hard a science as partical physics, but only by the
smallest degree. A religion isn't based on facts and observation, but on
dogma. Evolutionary theory is nothing like a religion.

Take care, Matthew.

-- 
Excess on occasion is exhilarating.  It prevents moderation from
acquiring the deadening effect of a habit.
                -- W. Somerset Maugham
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist