david@ssc-vax.UUCP (04/30/84)
[] Chris Minson: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect an "experiment with God" is > any scientific idea that contradicts the Bible as interpreted by > David Norris. Thus, Maxwell's Equations are okay, because the > Bible does not offer an alternative model, but evolution is heresy, > since it so obviously contradicts Genesis. You are wrong. I have repeatedly said openly that I am not a creationist, that I believe the *theory* of evolution has much merit, and that it does not so obviously contradict Genesis. But Chris does have an interesting point. Where do we draw the line between Science and Theology? Since I have left Chris with the wrong idea about my views on the subject (sorry), I'll try to clarify them. My idea of an "experiment with God" goes something like this: Gather 50 or so {Christians/Bhuddists/Hare Krisnas} in a room and ask them to pray for/against the stock market, maybe a specific stock. Record the results of the stock market the next day. Do this enough times to establish statistical confidence for each major religion (pick about 10 or so), and then publish the findings, along with any conclusions as to whether God exists or not, and which religion did the best (and whose God is therefore the "best" or most likely to exist). Now, anyone who thinks an idea like this is plausible (at least for the Christian God) ought to sit back and re-read some of the New Testament. If God is who He says He is, I doubt He would have anything to do with such silliness. I don't think that anyone who thinks such an experiment is a good idea really knows what the Christian message is or what the Christian God is like. I do not believe that the Bible is a science book, nor was it intended to be a science book. It is a plan. And, in a lesser sense, a history book; and a history book which encompasses the whole of history. It contains little (if anything) about science. This is not a put-down; but if the Bible is what it says it is, we should not expect it to. Science is a tool man uses to explain how things work. Note that after the explaining, it can do no more; it cannot of itself answer what to do with the explanation. Mankind can create very interesting things with genetic research, but science won't tell us whether to work on biological warfare or a cure for some disease. > Finally, it is true of course that science can answer only How and not Why. > However, this ignores the question on whether the "Whys" have any > meaning or any answer to begin with: Why is God? Why are triangles? I don't really think I've said anything new in my above "tirade" (the latest net term for Christian explanations). But the questions here only mock the sincere questions man has asked hinself throughout the ages, such as "Why am I here", "What is the meaning of life", etc., etc. These are valid questions. But they cannot be answered by science. Theology, or philosophy, maybe. But the question "Why are triangles" only demonstrates my point that science and theology shouldn't be mixed. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david