Jerry Avins <jya at ieee.org> wrote in message news:<3DF60CF0.605F43E at ieee.org>...
> jmdrake wrote:
> > As a creationist who is also a scientist I don't know where that puts
> > me. Not that I really care.
>> I see a difference between a creationist who is a scientist and the
> doctrine of Scientific Creationism; don't you? It seems to me that
> creationism, evolution, astrology, theism, and atheism are all matters
> of faith. Any can have their inner logic explored in a scientific way.
> None can be established by argument without begging the question.
> Scientific Creationists believe that logic alone establishes the
> correctness of their view; that's their silliness.
Well if you put it that way.... My view of "Scientific Creationists"
was that they attempted to find scientific evidence of their beliefs
(faith) as opposed to the idea that they could "prove" their beliefs
with science and logic alone. Certainly by definition matters of
faith cannot be fully proven.
> Two fallacies cloud these discussions: the argument from disbelief (I
> can't believe it, so there's no way it's true) and the argument from
> splendid ignorance (I don't see another explanation, so it must be
> true). Both fallacies are the same at their core, stemming (it seems to
> me) from arrogance.
John M. Drake