[net.religion] God and Science

ebs@mcnc.UUCP (07/19/83)

    One of the most interesting aspects of the ongoing debates
regarding divine creation vs. evolution is that scientific theories
which "contradict" the Bible were arrived at by strict
adherance to the scientific method.
These theories (evolution, etc.), however, are NOT the only
results of the application of the "scientific method". Other
modern results of science are radio, television, nuclear power,
automobiles, AND COMPUTERS.

    I said COMPUTERS!

    My point is that the Christians who literally interpret the bible
are perfectly willing to accept the vast majority of the products
of the application of the scientific method, even to the point
of using computer technology (i.e. electronic news) to argue against
and attempt to "disprove" evolution. This seems to be insincere at
best.

    In other words, if the scientific method produced the theory of
evolution, and the theory of evolution is inconsistant with your
idea of God, then mustn't the scientific method also be inconsistant
with your idea of God? Shouldn't you therefore go out into the
forest somewhere and live the rest of your life without cars,
computers, radios, manufactured clothing, electronic appliances,
processed food, etc.?

    I believe that the scientific method is a gift from God to
man in order that man better understand God's universe. I also
believe that true religion MUST conform to scientific theories.
In other words, what we know about science is a pitifully small
subset of "true religion". In order to understand science fully,
we must also understand God fully, and vice-versa. It is, of
course, impossible for us to fully understand anything, since our
minds have limited capacity. Thus, it would be to our benefit
if we started from what we know (computers and evolution included)
and attempted to increase the knowledge of the human race, rather
than debating on whether or not God created the universe in 7 days
flat, since the probability of this occurance is exceedingly small.

    Confidential to David Wright: Yes! I can!

                       Eddie Stokes (mcnc/ebs)

kwmc@hou5d.UUCP (K. W. M. Cochran) (07/19/83)

Surely anyone can see the falacies in this argument. Eddie Stokes's argument
boils down to:
	We have computers, cars etc .   developed through science....
	Therefore the THEORY of evolution is proved .....
	Therfore there is no God !

Come on Eddie, you can do better than that I hope.
		Ken Cochran,      hou5d!kwmc

kwmc@hou5d.UUCP (K. W. M. Cochran) (07/19/83)

P.S. it is *highly* debatable that the theory of evolution stems
from "strict scientific method".
					Ken Cochran   hou5d!kwmc

bch@unc.UUCP (07/20/83)

Did Ken Cochran and I read the same article by Eddie Stokes?  Nowhere
in the article does Eddie say that the theory of evolution is PROVEN,
nor does he say that this proves there is no god.  In fact, to quote
directly, Eddie says:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

    "I believe that the scientific method is a gift from God to
man in order that man better understand God's universe. I also
believe that true religion MUST conform to scientific theories.
In other words, what we know about science is a pitifully small
subset of "true religion". In order to understand science fully,
we must also understand God fully, and vice-versa. It is, of
course, impossible for us to fully understand anything, since our
minds have limited capacity. Thus, it would be to our benefit
if we started from what we know (computers and evolution included)
and attempted to increase the knowledge of the human race, rather
than debating on whether or not God created the universe in 7 days
flat, since the probability of this occurance is exceedingly small."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without accusing Ken of maliciousness and deliberately misrepresenting
Eddie's argument to suit his own purposes, I cannot see how he derived:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Surely anyone can see the falacies in this argument. Eddie Stokes's argument
boils down to:
	We have computers, cars etc .   developed through science....
	Therefore the THEORY of evolution is proved .....
	Therfore there is no God !"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
from Eddie's text.  My inference, I guess, is that Ken thinks that
anyone who believes in evolution (possibly anyone who isn't a funda-
mentalist) must be an atheist.  This wouldn't suprise me given some
of the other misapprehensions running around on this newsgroup.

				Byron Howes
				UNC - Chapel Hill