I will clip just one fraction of sentence -- not intending to take it out of
context -- but to attempt to develop a point.
alexanian@uncw.edu wrote (quoting someone else):
>
>
> ID advocates can't accept the inability of science to deal with
> supernatural hypotheses, and they see this limitation as a
> sacrilegious denial of God's work and presence.
It is also true that science (nowadays -- not so much in the past) is
completely
incapable of anything other than 100% naturalism. If God ever did act
in time or
space, today's science would have to deny it no matter what the
evidence might be.
Yet, by being Christians, we are indeed violating the naturalistic
rules of science
by promoting the notion that God entered the universe some 2000 years
ago. The only
question is where we draw the line.
Naturalism refuses to accept that any description other than
functions of x, y, z,
and t are allowable -- no matter how much trouble it is in. Saying
that something
can come into play outside of these variables is not religion, it is
looking for
truth in science. We believe that there are other dimensions, but we
rule out any
possibility that forces or phenomena from these dimensions could come
into play --
for fear that it might sound religious. We don't understand the
observation process
in quantum mechanics at all and we give undefined names like "dark matter",
"repulsive gravitational force" or "dark energy" where we simply do
not know what is
going on and could be dealing with a totally unsuspected new law
involving more that
conventional space time. (Please don't say "God of the gaps" at me --
that is not my
point!)
In my view, "naturalism" is in fact a religion,. It is the religious
belief, held by
many on this list, that says that God will not interact with His
universe (too much)
---- and we we define (I repeat "DEFINE") the physical universe to
conform to that
religious belief.
It is handy that atheists have to use the same definition so that we
do not have to
argue with their science.
Walt
.
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 22:18:06 EDT