Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:06:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
317 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > > And the REAL follow up to that is, what if the two disagree? I assume you'll
> > > say that science is necessarily wrong due to human error, though :)
> >
> > No. Actually, it's not so much due to error as it is to a lack of
> > understanding. Science admidts to progressively understand things, and when
> > new evidence is presented it changes it's theory on that matter. Supposed
> > disagreements are only due to a lack of data on science's part.
>
> Exactly. And maybe I erred semantically-- your assumption (I think) is that
> when what science tells us disagrees from what the Bible tells us, obviously
> science's conclusion has erred somehow-- either due to lack of data,
> incorrect data, or mis-interpreted data. Hence, not a rejection of science
> per se, but with how the scientific method had been executed. Yes?
Probably.
That's not to say that, being humans, we can't mis-interpret the Bible. But
philosophically, the literal interpretation says that the Bible is relatively
easy to understand - at face value. Not everything, certainly, but most
everything.
-Jon
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Exactly. And maybe I erred semantically-- your assumption (I think) is that when what science tells us disagrees from what the Bible tells us, obviously science's conclusion has erred somehow-- either due to lack of data, incorrect data, or (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
