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