Reply to comment

I like the notion that science is constantly being written. I'm a little uncomfortable with it being "story telling," though I couldn't really say why exactly. I guess I'd like to think of it as a more tangible truth? Maybe that's just because I'm afraid that if science isn't factual and "truthful" then what is? It was always so dependable. So if I observe that there is a desk in front of me right now but it's gone tomorrow am I not allowed to say that it's true that it's actually there? But I can touch it. It's true that it was there...for awhile. Maybe I'm just taking this too far. But that's all I was wondering. And as for what we talked about yesterday, basically Evolution vs Creationism and how maybe there aren't as many observations for Creationism but it's still a possible story because it can't be disproved...How far do we take this? That's a story that's based on faith, and if faith is accepting and believing in something without proof or without observation where does it fit in with science?