Steve Shaw

Well, Snail, if you think that this somewhat woolly statement contradicts my saying that we shouldn't regard it impossible for science to reach truth, perhaps you'll like to explain to us precisely what you think TIA's statement actually means. Go on. Make your first original contribution to the substantive matter!

First, let me make it clear that I have no intention of making an originakl contribution to the debate. There is no need. Far wiser heads than yours or mine have already gone over this for decades. It's already there athough it seems to have passed you by.

OK, TIA's "somewhat woolly statement" says that "science is *always* provisional", i.e. it is never TRUE. You, on the other hand are "not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth". Pretty clear contradiction there don't you think?

I'm off for another few days fun, frivolity and folk music in a muddy Sussex field so I haven't got time for a detailed response now but I stumbled across this fascinating and highly relevant document - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html. If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, read the first few paragraphs and then jump to IV(C) and take note of the importance of falsifiability as what sets science apart from religion.