Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What induction and deduction mean in practice

William Dembski
September 4, 2006
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Thanks, Denyse, for the previous post. The following schematic from that same site deserves a separate entry.

Here finally is proof positive that science is self-correcting!

Comments
From my experience Biblical Creationists are often unable to compromise on many aspects of the Bible - mainly the literal interpretation of genesis when it comes to the question of origins. This has lead to many accusations that they are being unscientific - and indeed someone with prior commitment to a particular paradigm of thought may not come to objective conclusions. That is not to say they don't make valid arguments. They sometimes do, but either way mainstream science won't take them seriously.WinglesS
September 4, 2006
September
09
Sep
4
04
2006
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Don't forget that in order to be published, the paper must have the ID disclaimer:
In absolutely NO WAY this paper suports, endorses or is friendly to the Christian fundamentalist doctrine called 'Intelligent Design'
Mats
September 4, 2006
September
09
Sep
4
04
2006
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Bill I've found that Weeler did write the following text too: "Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively. The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject." - Tom Weller, From Science Made Stupid ([Biology])kairos
September 4, 2006
September
09
Sep
4
04
2006
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply