Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Can science be done improperly?

Expand Messages
  • helenwoods2003
    ... was ... E. Bill, Logician or not, I appreciate the support. Helen
    Message 1 of 166 , Oct 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Robinson"
      <debatebill@...> wrote:
      >
      > I'll jump in and probably get smashed by the logicians in here.
      > Truth exists ithout humans. Mathematics exists without humans.
      > Humans feel a compulsion to think that things exist only because we
      > give them names and are there to serve us. Exponential growth of
      > populations occurs whether we identify it or not. It is arrogant, a
      > truly human failing, to hold that we alone identify truth.
      >
      > Without us, the universe would do the same things it did before we
      > discovered its nature. Right now, it is doing things we haven't
      > identified, these thiings are true, even though we don't know about
      > them yet.
      >
      > It is extremely egocentric and anthrocentric to believe that we have
      > any control over what is true and what isn't. The creationsist will
      > disagree because they want to believe everything, including truth
      was
      > created for them. Thruth does not rely on labels such as theism,
      > atheism, agnosticism, etc. to exist. Truth may be the closest thing
      > to god, but it doesn't need us.
      >
      > Okay, I have my bullet proof vest and SWAT gear on, so you can repy
      > now. I don't think I take any mortal hits. :-)
      >
      > Helen
      >
      > --------------------------------------------------------------------
      --------
      > --------------------------------------------------------------------
      --------
      > -----
      >
      > I like it, but then I am also not a logician.
      >
      > E Bill
      >

      E. Bill,

      Logician or not, I appreciate the support.

      Helen
    • Lynda Powell
      Ed s creationist nonsense should be seen as a nonspiritual kind of phariseeism. I like what the intelligent pastors are saying, not the creationist ones. I
      Message 166 of 166 , Mar 11, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        Ed's creationist nonsense should be seen as a nonspiritual kind of phariseeism. I like what the intelligent pastors are saying, not the creationist ones. I like this pastor's viewpoint. She says:

        As Christian writer Madeline L'Engle has emphatically insisted, "The Bible isn't factual; it's TRUE." She stands in a long line of theologians from the days of Augustine and before, recalling that the first interpreters of scripture read it allegorically, and that Jewish interpretation has for centuries found new truths in scripture instead of one right or literal interpretation.

        Yet L'Engle also explores the points of convergence between science and faith.For example, the twentieth century French priest and scientist Teilhard de Chardin wrote passionately that gravity – the attraction between physical bodies – was a physical manifestation of divine love, which is in essence the coming together of all things in God, the holy longing to overcome the separation of sin.

        Today, quantum physics includes what is called "chaos theory" – the insight that the laws of universe cannot function without an utterly inexplicable, unpredictable variable. Many theologians see this as the way in which prayer and the free will of God may play into events such as evolution or remission of cancer. Is this "intelligent design"? Oh no; oh no. This is something far more mysterious, far less nameable. God is beyond even "intelligent design." May we never fear to know whatever God allows us to know, in any realm of knowledge.

        lkp

         In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret." <lalbert001@...> wrote:
        >
        > Geoff here,
        > In the sense that creationism speaks of orgins, I have no proof of
        > that, just as Darwinism has no proof of origins. Intelligent Design
        > has the evidence that bolsters my faith in creationism. I am aware
        > that Intelligent design is not the same as creationism, however.
        >
        > eduard ---
        > What evidence does Intelligent Design have??
        >
        > Leon: No evidence at all in the sense that the only "intelligent designers" that have actually been observed are human beings with equally observable organic human brains.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.