NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15956

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 4.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: [e-mail] (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: TIME cover story
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 02:09:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: sgi
Lines: 76
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Baker) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> >>
|> >>     When the U.S. National Academy of Sciences faced the threat
|> >> of creation-science in 1981, it passed a resolution saying that
|> >> "Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms
|> >> of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to
|> >> misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief."
|> >
|> >It seems to me that where the Creation-Science people go wrong is
|> >in trying to play both games at once.  People like Morris claim
|> >that physical evidence supports their beliefs, but they also claim
|> >that where Science and Faith conflict, Faith wins.
|>
|> Science and faith should never conflict.  If God is the Creator, and
|> faith seeks knowledge about God, then the two should be in harmony.
|> If they are not, one needs to re-evaluate BOTH.  Either the scientific
|> conclusion is based on error, or your theology needs re-thinking.

A question.    Suppose we find fossils.    Suppose a Scientist says
"These fossils are evidence that <such and such>".   Suppose a religious
person says "God put the fossils there to test our Faith".[*]

Are Science and Faith in conflict here, or are they simply making
statements that have no relation to one another?   What does "Science
and faith should never conflict" really mean?   What does "conflict"
really mean?    Does Physics conflict with "The Lord of the Rings"?

|>
|> However, it is rediculous to consider the two separate.  To do so is to
|> say that either we cannot make conclusions based on scientific
|> observation, or that God is unknowable.  The latter is what the U.S.
|> N.A.S. seems to be saying.  I think they have a valid point to make;
|> that scientific methods and theological methods are quite different.
|> However, the results of the two should be entirely compatible.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "The latter is
what the U.S. N.A.S. seems to be saying."    Do you mean that the
NAS claims God is unknowable?    I don't think that follows from
what they say.     I think what they are saying is that Scientific
knowledge does not apply to a God who is defined to be knowable only
through Faith.

|>
|> >Then the Academy of Sciences resolution is perfectly reasonable,
|> >because what it's saying is that if you keep Faith in your back
|> >pocket as a kind of magic argument-winner, then appealing to
|> >Science does indeed lead to a misunderstanding.   If Faith is
|> >the ultimate arbiter, then searching for physical evidence that
|> >you are prepared to toss out if it does not suit you, is basically
|> >a waste of time.
|>
|> It is interesting that creationists claim this is exactly what the
|> evolutionists do with much of their evidence - they present the few
|> cases that support evolution and ignore all else.  They complain that
|> evolutionists seek and promote alleged transitional forms and shaky
|> theories as fact, while often neglecting to mention contrary evidence.

And is there such "contrary evidence"?    We often ask in this group,
and in several years I have never seen any hard evidence that contradicts
evolution.    Do you have some?

|>
|> When you look at popular "scientific" authors, you find that many are
|> making theological conclusions based entirely on their interpretation of
|> a little data and a lot of speculation.  It seems they are only trying to
|> justify their beliefs.  To me, this is just as bad as ignoring science
|> entirely based on your religious beliefs.

And who are these popular "scientific" authors?    You are going to
give us a quote or two, I suppose?

jon.

[*]  An example only: I am aware that not all relgious persons say this.