Sheila Wilson wrote:
>That is a great explanation. To expound a little: ID says in part that if we don't understand something, it must be supernatural. Science says we don't understand because we don't have all the evidence or knowledge required to understand. If this is true, where does the supernatural fit in to any explanation? What would cause us to believe in God if we think this way? If everything can be defined by natural explanations, then where is God?
>
>I don't believe ID is correct nor do I believe in a young earth. I also don't know where to draw the line between the natural and the supernatural explanations.
>
What you are really looking at is the limitations of
science. Basically, science cannot address the
supernatural because there is no mechanism to test.
ID tries to claim that this can be shown by probabilities,
but statistics have a way of being rather deceptive.
Probably the concept of
God being "hidden" seems a reasonable way to see it.
You can also view it that God at every atosecond grants
us yet one.
Basically, science has no way to really investigate God.
We are awed by science's powerful explanations, and we
want a "scientific proof" on every matter under the sun,
but some things are probably not amenable to this obsession
no matter how much desired. Even from patriarchal times,
it was always by faith, not by fact, and I'd say that is
not likely to change.
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Fri May 6 20:26:05 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 06 2005 - 20:26:06 EDT