Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: RICH ROSEN's preconceptions and presumptions.
Message-ID: <146@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 19:28:05 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.146
Posted: Mon Nov 19 19:28:05 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Nov-84 01:29:45 EST
References: <606@watdcsu.UUCP> <294@qantel.UUCP> <258@pyuxd.UUCP> <314@qantel.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 56
Summary: 

<>

As a christian AND a scientist(biologist) I felt I *had*
to comment on some of Ken`s statements:

In article <314@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes:
>  I was born only with the knowledge of the difference between right and
>wrong.  And that punishment would come from wrong deeds.  Did I get them from
>my parents?  I assume here is where you would say 'yes'.

	I would also say Yes, at least to a large degree.  A persons
initial concept of right and wrong comes largely from ones parents
during the first two yrs or so of life -- before any conscious memories.

>
>Rich, do you claim that you have no assumptions or preconceptions about the
>world around you?  If you feel that Christians and many others do, wouldn't 
>it follow that you might have them too?  Why should you be considered free
>from the things that you blame so many others for?
	
	Here I agree with Ken, *everyone* has preconceptions,
including myself:  knowing this I try to at *least* identify
my own preconceptions and own up to them.

>
>You however have science.  An entity that is allways changing as new facts are
>discovered.  A belief system that sets forth certain standards about the 
>universe, and in ten or twenty years, changes the rules because of some new
>discovery.

*flame on*
	I consider this statement *entirely* wrong. *Science* per se
is *not* a belief system, it is a methodology, an approach to discovery.
Fundamental to this methodology is a willingness to modify concepts
as new data come to light.  To insist on clinging to old "theories"
in the face of contrary data is contrary to the very basis of science.
(Admittedly I know of some otherwise intelligent scientists who insist
on clinging to pet theories out of pride, but that just proves scientists
are human too.)  You seem to have confused *science* with *scientism*,
which *is* a belief system based on the concept that science is the
*only* basis for understanding, thus elevating it to a religion.

>
>You say that I use cyclical logic in saying that the Bible tells me the Bible
>is true, etc.  Well, you also use faulty logic.  Science tells you that science
>is right, doesn't it?  Either it does, or some subjective evidence does.

	Wrong again - The scientific method is validated by the fact that
it works.  After all where did computers come from??

>--
>"...holding forth the                               Ken Nichols
> word of life..." Phil. 2:16                        ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken
>-----------------------

	A christian *can* be rational(I *hope*).