shrug
It seems to be inordinately difficult for me to make my point so I will try
one more time and then give up.
There are many on this list who have taken the position -- sometimes
indirectly and sometimes quite explicitly --- that it is not in God's
nature to set aside His own physical laws and interact with his own universe.
That is clearly a religious belief not a scientific one. That is more than
just saying "we don't know what causes a given phenomena" (like galactic
motion). It is saying that we absolutely _do_ know that it is a "natural" and
must be "dark matter" because what else could it be?
Then we say that everyone who does not agree with that is being
"unscientific" as if methodological naturalism is a discovered law in itself
that has never been violated. Of course it _cannot_ be violated when it is
_defined_ to be true by those who define science to exclude it in the first
place. The reasoning is circular at best.
D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote (among other things)
> Evidently you have God in a test tube. This means that your God is too
> small.
My God can do whatever He wants to do and I just like to discover what it is
--- without artificial intellectual constraints on His behaviour in His
universe. I am interested in truth more than in science and I don't have God
constrained inside a box.
Others do. Do you?
and
> Wendee Holtcamp partially wrote:
>
>
>
> I find it quite odd and interesting that adamant atheists and certain
> Christians fall into the same category of believing that evolution and God
> are mutually exclusive! Hmm....
>
Equally odd is that atheists and certain Christians believe that evolution
_must_ be true on purely philosophical grounds -- that, because of the
methodological nature inherent in science, it is a forgone conclusion that
God is not allowed to be involved other than in some sneaky way that prevents
any direct interaction. God is _defined_ to be out of the picture; therefore
He must be out of the picture. Therefore evolution is "the only game in town"
to quote Dawkins.
Now I happen to believe in evolution. However, if significant information
seemed to indicate to the contrary, I would not reject a new aproach out of
hand. The search for truth must take precedence over the search for purely
scientific explanations (IMO).
and
> Can you give an example of in the past when science employed something other
> than 100% naturalism? The only thing I know of is that early scientists did
> not have problems discussing God in their reporting of their science --
> specifically in the conclusions they drew, and maybe in developing the
> hypotheses. But I'd be very curious if you had any info on examples where
> early scientists actually somehow used "other than" naturalism.
>I'm not even
> sure how that would work.
>
From Newton's Principia:
"The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric
with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in
the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the
earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same
direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets;
but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical
causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets
range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that
kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the
planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move
the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest
distances from each other, and thence suffer the least
disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of
the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and
dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
and it continues from there on
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/genschol.htm
I shall now do a Glenn Morton:
1.) Declare victory -- or at least a draw
2.) Hop on my horse
and
3.) Ride off into the sunset
Actually it is more like sunrise ;-)
Best to all!
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 : Thu Jun 06 2002 - 10:12:39 EDT