Fair enough Chuck. But why do you seem to hold TE's responsible for Sagan
et al?
If you wish to hold people accountable to truth, why is your emphasis so one
sided when both extremes play fast and loose with the demarcation between
science, reality and metaphysics?
I don't disagree with your criticism about Sagan, but I have been inchurches
where the literal 6 day creation was taught as fact, the flood version of
the Grand Canyon taught as fact, etc. Then the same people turned around
and criticised science for teaching evolution as fact.
In some regards, the actions of evolutionists who do not believe in God are
understandable--if one does not have any conception of the supernatural, why
is it surprising that he does not consider anything but naturalistic
explanations for the world (I do not wish to excuse their unbelief, but
simply explain that it is not too surprising--this is why we have the Great
Commission). On the other hand, Christians who have a better grasp of
supernatural truth often do so at the expense of naturalistic truth, and
then invoke the double standard I mentioned above. This, more than the
philosophical naturalism of my colleagues, creates problems when I try to
engage them in a dialog of other possibilities regarding origins, and the
limits of what science has to say about the nature of the universe.
Shalom,
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"To disdain philosophy is really to be a philosopher." Blaise Pascal, Pensees
__________________________________________________________________________