Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Response to the Frontline Message-ID: <631@cadovax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-May-85 21:49:14 EDT Article-I.D.: cadovax.631 Posted: Wed May 22 21:49:14 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 26-May-85 21:15:39 EDT Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA Lines: 89 [...............] >> The fundamental intellectual and scientific problem with >> creationism is that its basic assumption lies outside the >> bounds of science, so that scientists don't bother with it, >> and that creationists (and the dichotomy is entirely >> intended) attempt to define the problem out of existence by >> insisting that one must "take it on faith." > >> Faith, I must re-emphasize, is religious. > >Naturalism has faith as well, as indicated above: The faith that the >supernatural may be ignored and that naturalistic explanations are or >will be sufficient. This is unprovable. It too must be taken on >faith. Except for the fact that we can actually see natural processes at work, and experiment and test these natural processes in order to learn more about them, thereby providing some basis on which to make decisions other than pure faith. >If the supernatural does not exist, then of course the inference is >valid. If it does, the inference is invalid. The inference in no way >helps us to decide on the existence or non-existence. Neither does >the opposite inference. I think, therefore I am. If God thinks, then therefore He is, yet He may be the only one who knows it for sure. If I see a bird flying, and I can corroborate that vision with other people who also see a bird flying, then we can reasonably assume that a bird can fly. Certainly you can make a case that birds can't fly, you just think they're flying for some reason, but until you can provide sufficient evidence to out-weigh the evidence that birds DO fly there is no reason to abandon the assumption that a bird can fly. The existance of God (assuming it was proven) does not disprove evolution. Some evidence that natural processes are wildly inconsistent might, and that could happen independent of any proof (or reality) of the existance of God. If we are to believe that there is ANY evidence of ANYthing, from the existance of the Bible and its authors, to the existance of evolution, there has to be something on which to base your decisions on existance. Christians base their beliefs NOT on pure faith, but on the Bible, and on the many people who expouse various forms of Christianity. If you had never HEARD of Christianity, never seen a Bible, and arrived at the idea of Christianity COMPLETELY on your own, then maybe it could be considered pure faith. But I would think you would admit, when you are unsure in your faith, you turn to the things that your faith is based on (the Bible, your local pastor etc.), and these are tangible items. Scientists base their faith on observable natural processes, as these are much more useful in describing, explaining, predicting, and experimenting within the framework of the natural processes they are exploring. Scientists didn't always do this however. Science USED to be based on the Bible. Unfortunately, the scientists found that this was not useful in many circumstances, as more and more natural processes were experienced that were poorly explained therein. Many Christians don't seem to have any problem with minor interpretations of certain parts of the Bible, (and particularly in the Old Testament). And, with what I would consider relatively minor interpretations, (Genesis) the Bible dosen't have to conflict with these observed natural processes. I've heard many Christians comment that much of Revelations was written in such that the people AT THE TIME could understand. I would think this same argument could be applied to Genesis. The Fundamentalists however, seem to feel that this might compromise the concept of original sin. Galileo was excommunicated for his evidence that the earth moves around the sun (instead of vice-versa). Yet observed natural evidence has won out. Do we still teach school children that some people believe that the sun revolves around the earth? What would that do to other areas of astrophysics? Would we teach that some people believe that 2+2=5 if it was somebody's religious issue? If we did, what would that do to higher mathmatics? I think it is clear that the Fundamentalists have to make peace with science and admit that they are clinging to superstition. Then they can get on with the business of teaching the moral principles that they are all about without alienating a large percent of the population simply on judgement grounds. The Bible would still seem to indicate that there are penalties for wandering off the 'path' of the values presented there, even without the 'excuse' of original sin. Many Christians have little or no problems with the concept of evolution, only certain ones. Evolution does not prove the non- existance of God any more than proof of the existance of God would disprove evolution. What we're talking about here, is the interpretation of the Bible vs the interpretation of observable natural phenomena. And when you get right down to it, even the BIBLE is observable phenomena. >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd