From owner-biophysics@net.bio.net Thu Nov 19 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov!cpk-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.indiana.edu!not-for-mail From: Shaft Newsgroups: bionet.biophysics,bionet.microbiology,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: K.P. the beast Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:35:00 -0500 Organization: Indiana University Lines: 35 Message-ID: <36532160.4995D522@indiana.edu> References: <721spg$cr7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36449D67.378533CC@pop3.concentric.net> <36449FE2.313F8F3@pop3.concentric.net> <36477CA4.D2FED10@pop3.concentric.net> <3647B373.953F0A70@pop3.concentric.net> <3649B0AF.E720E242@psci.net> <364AAB63.C5056FB9@pop3.concentric.net> <364B5C6D.75E14B08@indiana.edu> <72s7c5$1mt@apple.telalink.net> Reply-To: qmorrisREMOVE@indiana.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: fa215-6.ucs.indiana.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Xref: biosci bionet.biophysics:4554 bionet.microbiology:15055 bionet.neuroscience:25844 You can search for middle ground in the fray of the arguments, and inhabit with your comfortable beliefs, but one fact remains. The numerous hypotheses of creation by the hand of God are UNTESTABLE, and therefore UNSCIENTIFIC. If you believe in the beauty and simplicity of the scientific method as a model that guides your life and your pursuit of the truth outside the laboratory, then you will quickly find yourself among the agnostics. So, find your middle ground. Feed your "inquiries". But realize that your hybrid philosophy of the universal creation is only partially based on scientific thinking. The other part is pure revelation. shaft News wrote: > Asking ones > self, "How could this be done?" has been the start of many a discovery. The > Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and any number of other religious texts can > serve to spur such inquiries. > > >Any particular Bible has been translated too many times to have this level > >of technical accuracy and the creation stories (of which there are two) > >have independent sources and disagree on some key issues, relevant to the > >debate, so what is the point? > > > >Cheers, > >Stephan > > I think the only point of any of this is a search for, and a continual > testing of the truth as we understand it. What is true for us today may > change because of evidence presented tomorrow. We must always question what > we know, else we become complacent and ignorant. .