Interpreting evidence has a lot to do with how open your mind is. What
questions you ask yourself. I have followed and been interested in the two
fields of study. The one side is trying to disprove God and the other is
trying to prove God. Neither is correct. Both extremes put blinders on when
presented with hard evidence. Instead of dismissing the evidence when it
does not agree with your hypothesis, one should study and find out why it
does not agree. I have met too many programmers which set out to fix a
problem by changing code and when it works say Hurray I fixed it. But when
asked what was wrong do not have a clue, and when the code breaks again are
just as clueless what to do next as they were when they started. So it is
with God and science. Ignoring the evidence, any evidence, will lead you
down a dead-end path. Evolution is just as much a religion as the belief in
God. There is no hard evidence to substantiate either. If there was why
continue to spend billions of dollars to prove it? True science is to ask
questions and find answers to those questions. The good thing about wrong
science is that they write down information for those who follow after look
at with open eyes and minds and come to a better understanding of the
wonderful world in which God has given us.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Wirt Atmar
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 4:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: Back to Mars


Wendell writes:

> I have no problem with the Mars Lander project.  What I do have problems
>  with is the lengths some will go to prove or disprove their pet theory.
>  Whatever data is collected may well prove interesting, but what is more
>  interesting is the interpretations of that data.  As long as they keep
>  science on an empirical basis, that is fine; however, when they start to
>  take the data and categorically say that it proves one theory or another
>  about origins, then they have left the realm of true science and entered
>  into speculation and pseudo-science.

Unfortunately, that isn't the way science works. The hypothesis, a
cornerstone in the process of actually performing science, is intrinsically
a
speculative thought (to some degree or another), albeit based on a
projection
of the best possible current evidence and rational, logical theory. Indeed,
the word "hypothesis" is Greek, meaning "underlying thought". Your current
hypothesis governs everything about how you approach your experimental
design
and you build your instrumentation.

The Mars Lander is precisely one of those instruments designed to serve a
rational, hypothetical purpose. And, in this case, the lengths we'll go to
prove our pet theories is 40 million miles :-). But all kidding aside,
Wendell isn't the only person to voice this concern, within or outside
science. However, I adamantly disagree with such a notion, as did Darwin.
Darwin wrote the following in a letter to Henry Fawcett in 1861:

"About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to
observe and not theorize; and I well remember saying that at this rate a
might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the
colors. How odd it is that anyone should see that all observation must be
for
or against some view if it is to be of any service."

I keep that quote framed next to my desk, as a constant reminder to what I
should be doing on those days when I do get a chance to do science.

Wirt Atmar