I always enjoy jousting with you. You force me to think hard.
At 07:27 AM 1/22/98 -0800, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>At 08:08 PM 1/21/98 -0600, Glenn wrote:
>>If God must save us from all our theological/scientific problems by creating
>>or fixing whatever the problem is, then why do we need science at all? Why
>>do we need to pay any attention to observational data? Maybe god created a
>>different number of laminae between the two tuffs that Buchheim studied? I
>>don't see an end to this type of game. It would be much simpler to just have
>>God do everything and then we are done with the creation/evolution issue
>>because there is no issue. What ever was done was done miraculously.
>
>So, because you want to avoid having God do anything, you would contrive a
>falsehood that is rationalistic??? Do you want Truth or do you want a
>logical positivist explanation for everything?
I want a consistent explanation. I don't want to exclude God from the
universe, but then I do want to know WHAT and HOW He did things. The only
way to determine that is by reading Scripture AND examining scientific
evidence. Then one must sit and think for a long time trying to fit both
together. Just because God does something via a pre-established law or set
of laws does not automatically exclude God from the explanation. God
appears to move the planets by some laws He set up. He does not push the
planets around directly. Is Newton's Law a logical postitivist explanation?
Is it not Truth?
You may have to choose, in
>fact if there is a Creator God, you will indeed have to choose.
Well, you know that I choose a Creator God! Or I wouldn't be on the internet
with my position.
>There are
>areas where we can deduce things on our own and do reproducible experiments
>and these are the areas where science is strongest. Then there are areas
>where we have to try to explain existing phenomena which we can only
>speculate about and try to think of all possible explanations and try to
>choose from among these the one or ones that seem to us to make the most
>sense, and this is where science is weakest, and where we would expect God,
I think we differ on the strength of science when it comes to Geology and
biology.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm