Walt Hicks wrote:
> 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
My explanation for this is, I said it before, why can't we have science that
looks for 100% natural causes, but also have a supernatural realm that is
also 100% true and existent? I am not a "deist" and do indeed believe God
interacts with creation continually. I can't tell you exactly what
situations he had his hand in, so to speak, and what he doesn't. Is it
everything? I don't rightly know. But I do think he is definitely involved.
But that doesn't mean I can go out and test and find his "fingerprints."
Maybe I can, and it certainly is an interesting question to explore. But so
what if I can't. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it just means maybe he
doesn't want to be found by empirical means. I do agree with you that some
evolutionary creationists may have gone to an extreme where they say that
God can't be found in creation and so therefore he is not involved in any
way, blah blah. But I think more important is that God will do whatever the
heck He so chooses, and we are just blindly (relative to God) grasping
trying to figure things out. So humility is important for everyone involved!
I wrote:
> > 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.
Walt replied:
> From Newton's Principia:
>
> "The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in
> circles concentric with the sun, <SNIP>
> the sun, planets, and comets, ***could only proceed from the counsel and
> dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being***"
This is a *conclusion* drawn from his explanation of the planetary motion,
not something inherent in the science or discovery itself. He made the
conclusion that only an intelligent and powerful Being could create such a
system but that conclusion does not necessarily have to be drawn. It was a
personal conclusion, and one likely shared by many religious persons, but
not the same one drawn by many scientists who are not believers and can
still accept an amazing universe without believing in God.
> 1.) Declare victory -- or at least a draw
> 2.) Hop on my horse
> and
> 3.) Ride off into the sunset
LOL! :)
Wendee
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com
Environmental Journalist ~~ www.greendzn.com
Adjunct Instructor of Biology, Kingwood College
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 08 2002 - 02:27:17 EDT