On 26/08/2012 04:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 13:55, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> The bit that really gets me is where he points to the definition of the
>> scientific method and starts complaining that it's "unnecessarily
>> restrictive" because it doesn't admit magic, supernatural forces, and
>> deities.
>
> Funny thing is, no, it doesn't. It only doesn't admit those things
> without evidence.

The trouble is, if you get an experimental result and say "it must have 
been caused by magic"... that explains EVERY POSSIBLE RESULT. Which is 
to say, it's in irrefutable claim.

A lot of people don't seem to understand this. Science is not the study 
of things which are TRUE, only things which are PROVABLE. So even if God 
DID create the universe, we can never prove nor disprove this, so EVEN 
IF IT IS TRUE, it's not science. And never will be.

Behe basically argued that limiting science to things which can be 
explained rationally is "too limiting". By which he means "doesn't allow 
me to claim that the Christian Holy Bible is science". :-P

Post a reply to this message