On Wed, 3 Jan 1996 09:24:38 -0600 you wrote:
SJ>By extension, you also seem to believe it is OK that school
>children be taught that life arose 100% naturalistically from
>chemicals, when really it didn't?
SC>What does "100% naturalistically" mean? When a seed is planted and
>a tree grows from it, we understand this in naturalistic terms. When
>someone dies from a heart attack, we attribute it to natural causes.
>But these examples don't diminish our recognition of God as a creator
>of that tree, or sustainer of the cosmos.
Agreed, but these are examples of the ongoing *operation* of parts
of the cosmos, not of the *origin* of those parts.
The first is Providence, the second is Creation.
SC>So why in the world is it
>"wrong" to view the creation as being understandable, at least in
>part, in naturalistic terms?
The last bit "at least in part" answers your own question! :-)
When I say that "life arose 100% naturalistically from chemicals", I
mean *fully* naturalistically, ie. spontaneously, with no need for
direct intervention by an Intelligent Designer.
Students are taught this, but most theists don't believe its true.
Indeed, Burgy AFAIK does not believe it is true, yet he defends the
right of science, using taxpayers money, to teach it as fact.
His justification is that it is part of the "game" of science. My
question is, since when is it right to teach what is not true, just
because that is the rules of a "game", called "science", that
materilaistic-naturalists have made up?
Johnson says:
"At this point we begin to hear that the naturalists have merely been
defining the rules of a particular game called "science," that science
never claims to have absolute truth, that naturalists have never
claimed that creationism is false but merely that it is not "science,"
that "evolution" is a modest doctrine of biological change that says
nothing about ultimate origins, and even that science itself is
neutral about "the existence of God" and is therefore fully compatible
with "religion." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p203)
He asks:
"If the atheists make the rules, the atheists are surely going to win
the game, regardless of what is true. The rules limit science to
naturalistic theories and provide that the best available naturalistic
theory can be considered successful even when it rests on unverifiable
assumptions and conflicts with some of the evidence. If those are the
rules of the game, then it is indeed futile for theists to try to
play-but why should theists accept such rules, except that they lack
the courage to challenge them?" (Johnson, p100)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------