[From Bill Powers (2007.02.16.0925 MST)]
Martin Taylor 2007.02.16.00.55 --
What a difference one word makes: You say "These claims do NOT use the same evidence." whereas I said: "These two claims use the same kind of evidence." That little word "kind" makes a great difference!
This is a rather generous way of using the term "evidence." What some anonymous person says or writes is not evidence about anything but the saying or the writing. It is true that the Bible says Methuselah lived 900 years. That is not evidence that Methuselah lived 900 years. It is at best hearsay, assuming it's not just a flat-out fabrication.
Faith is often tested by evidence to the contrary. To demand evidence is to show lack of faith. If one truly has faith, contrary evidence is only a temptation to commit a sin by believing it. God tested Job's faith in a loving compassionate God by torturing him. He did that again to Jesus.
When two people have evidence that leads them to wildly contrary conclusions, the usual scientific approach is to transfer the discussion from the conclusions (which are put on hold) to the evidence and the agree-on rules of reasoning. All parties to the discussion then concentrate on finding what is reponsible for the disparity. As long as there is complete disagreement between honest parties, neither party's previous conclusion can be accepted.
Of course this way of dealing with disagreements assumes "good faith" on all sides, so that all are assumed willing to accept whatever consensus comes out of the discussion. I can imagine a good scientist going along with that principle. I can't, however, imagine a person of faith saying "OK, if your evidence turns out to be better than mine, or your method of analysis more rigorous, I will agree to give up my faith."
Science and faith are contradictory system concepts. They can't coexist without conflict. Never could, never will.
Best,
Bill P.