From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad:tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-a!steve
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: Feucht vs. Cranford - an observer comments.
Article-I.D.: dadla-a.327
Posted: Wed Apr 27 16:57:20 1983
Received: Sat Apr 30 09:37:12 1983

Well, I am afraid that we have an interesting exchange going on.
Dennis' last letter tends to make Mike Cranfords last letter look shrill,
due to the seemingly even-tempered request for open-mindedness.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of non-sequiters in Dennis' letter which
must be pointed out.

The key beginning point for all of Dennis argument is the following:

	Is there any authority beyond science to which you would
	appeal? If not, then science serves you in the same capacity
	that the authority of biblical doctrine serves Christians.
	Analogically, science is your "religion", if indeed it is
	the highest authority for your beliefs.

Thereafter, Dennis assumes that it *is* the highest authority for his
(Mike's, but to great extent as well, my) beliefs.

Sorry, Dennis - there is a higher authority. That is the conviction that
Science is not infallible - that we will know more tomorrow than we do
today and that some of what we know now is wrong - but that much of
it we know to a strong level of certainty.

The key difference between a believer in "scientism" and a biblical
literalist is that the former is willing to change his beliefs when
presented with new evidence - but the latter is not.

PLEASE WILL SOMEONE OUT THERE WHO BELIEVES IN CREATIONISM GIVE US
A SUBSTANTIAL WELL-DOCUMENTED BODY OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM?
Negative evidence against evolution IS NOT proof of creationism.

Ultimately, the best test of a system of what Dennis would like to
think are equal belief systems is the ability to predict correctly
aspects of the Universe.

Let us therefore consider the following two interesting predictions
of religion of old:

	1. Madness is due to the possession of demons. The only
	cure is to exorcise the demon, or to punish the sinner
	so inflicted.

	2. Lightning is the wrath of God. The only way to prevent
	lightning from striking your house is to live a sin-free
	life. Obviously, therefore, lightning won't strike the
	local church (the one with that steeple that towers over
	all the houses in town?) so store all your gunpowder there.

>From our modern point of view both of these are ridiculous - even to
biblical literalists.

What has to be understood is that science, despite that vast body of
knowledge we have now accumulated, is still very young. It is not by
any means a complete body of knowledge yet.

[I can hear a gloating chuckling out there from someone saying "But
you are admitting that you don't know whether creation happened."
We'll get back to that in a minute.]

However, consider some of the revolutions that have happened in
science - most notably the relativity theory and the quantum
theory. In both cases the theories replaced earlier theories
(with not very much fuss!) because they explained the existant
evidence better. However - in those areas where both the old
theory and the new theory apply they give the same answer!
At slow speeds there is no difference between relativistic
physics and Newtonian physics.

In order for a new theory to be accepted - or even to be given
a chance to be discussed - it must explain all of the existing
evidence plus something new that the old theory cannot explain.

To date I have seen neither any discussion of how the creationist
theory explains the vast body of evidence for plate tectonics,
most of geology, and the incredibly huge body of biological
evidence now known. Not only that - where is your major
new problem that cannot be explained by the old theory?

[Actually, there is one! It comes down to this: Humans have souls
and animals do not. How could humans have acquired souls if they
developed from animals? Unfortunately, before considering this
question you must come up with empirical evidence of souls in
humans, and also that animals do not have souls.]

Dennis makes a thorough hash of the term "evidence". Having made
his assumption that science is simply another religion, and that
therefore all aspects of it are simply belief - he then states
that one cannot prove a belief via evidence. So simple and so
wrong! Science is NOT a system of beliefs. It is a system of models
that are used to explain a body of evidence.

Religion IS a system of beliefs and is therefore unprovable. Models
can be disproved (by coming up with counter-examples) and though
they cannot be proved, one can become virtually certain that the
model is right by testing it many times and in many ways.

The difference between a scientist and a preacher is that the
former says "I think that" and the latter "I know that".

By the way - there ARE people - typically poorly educated - for
which science IS a religion. Don't hold those folks against the
rest of us. EVERY system, regardless of what, has its orphan
children and camp followers. (You guys got Jerry Falwell - and
are welcome to him!)

One minor point that I should point out: "Is the scientific method
demonstrably true?" Dennis asks. By so doing he rapes the language.
A "method" is neither true nor false - it is valid or invalid. The
proof of validity is if the method works and generates useful insights
or results. By such a test the scientific method is valid. All of
the physics needed to develop the terminal you are reading this on
was developed using that method. Likewise your car, your TV,
the jet you flew in last week, the chemicals in the vitamin tablet
you took this morning (and indeed the fact that you took it at all),
and so on. To deny the fruits of science is absurd, and it is equally
absurd to say that they could have been developed without the
scientific method.

Lastly - there is no conflict between Christianity and Science (though
this is an apple-and-orange comparison) as long as you accept that
one is based on faith and the other on objectively demonstrable proof.

There are many people who believe both systems. To answer the "soul"
question I presented above, most people I know who believe both in
Christianity and evolution have concluded that ALL living things have
souls, not just humans. So far as I can tell this is not a problem
with Christianity.

Why must one believe in the literal truth of the Bible to be a
Christian? Why cannot one believe it is a book written by humans
for other humans, and therefore fallible and subject to distortion?
Instead of a history, take it as a source of wisdom. The wisdom is
valid even if the stories are wrong!

	Enough, already.

		Steve Den Beste
		Tektronix Logic Analyzers
		[decvax|ucbvax]!teklabs!dadla-a!steve