Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Human Evolution

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Joe Postma on September 13, 1999 23:33:47 UTC

You can believe and impose whatever you want onto nature, if thats what makes you happy. The thought that people think that nature should abide by what the Bible says and not some other religions' doctrinal text is absurd. It is egotistical. Creationism is an easy way out, it requires no thought, no reasearch no experimentation. Of course anything observed will be presumed as evidence for creationism anyway. No knowledge is gained in obscuring the facts. Creationism is not an easier way to explain nature, in fact, it requires beleif in certain unproovable assumptions before anything can be explained at all. That is why it is not science, but religious faith, dogma, doctrine etc. Science on the other hand presumes nothing on the nature of existence, but merely looks onto nature for the answers. You said it yourself, "they assume a priori, all that exists is matter and the physical laws." Exactly my friend, you are absolutley correct. To assume otherwise requires beleif in certain unproovable assumptions. To assume otherwise requires faith, and faith is the antithesis of science. You said scientists have the task of "explaining our existence utilizing only naturalsitic mechanisms." Again, the assumption of some other mechanism requires faith, religion, beleif in God, etc. You said of the process of science "If these mechanisms are found wanting (as is often the case) they rather lamely suggest that further evidence remains to be found." Again, you are correct. Although what is lame is to presume that you know all the answers or at least the key to them before you search nature for her hidden truths, and to deny that you require more evidence. What is remarkable and requires great strenght of mind is when a scientist says "I am not certain, my theory is lacking, I do not know" when one is confronted with (as yet) an ununderstood phenomenae. Would a creationist ever say that? No way!! They would say whatever can't be understood is simply the work of God, and they would stop there and no new knowledge would be gained. The scientist however keeps working diligently to beckon from nature her hidden truths, and in due time knowledge WILL be gained. Not absolute knowledge, like a creationist presumes he has, but more knowledge, a knowledge closer to the truth. A knowledge of physical reality. Creationism requires and presumes God, science requires curiosity and presumes nothing. Which of these requires faith? Your selected quotes clearly expose your beleif in supernatural phenomenae. How then can what you believe be an explanation for physical existence, since by definition supernatural phenomenae are not physical phenomenae? Your logic is horribly, violently, contradictory. It has been great talking, but I fear I may not be able to visit much more as school is starting to get very busy. But then again, I love a good argument. Thanks!!

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins