hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (09/15/85)
______________________________________________________________________________ > { From: jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) } > > The moderator of the program concluded the show by saying that > > If evolution is true then creation must be false. > If creation is false then there is no Adam. > If there is no Adam then there is no original sin. > If there is no original sin then there is no > need for redeemer. > > The bottom line is that evolution is the antithesis to Christianity. The moderator is trying to prove that evolution is strictly a philosophy and nothing else. If he is correct in that sense, then the above chain of if-then's could be argued. He is wrong. Biological evolution is a body of theories describing probable mechanism for the development of biological organisms to the current state. It is a scientific abstraction of highly complex physical processes. Its foundation requires a rigorous definition of life forms in terms of physical qualities. Creation is a _____. (I hesitate to put a word on it at this point because there are many appropriate ones depending upon your point of view.) In terms of science, creation is not valid in principle in the first place. Therefore, there is no place for creation in science. Christianity is a religion. Religions conflict with science in, among other things, that they freely recognize the magical and the supernatural as real entities some times using them as foundations. The idea of a set of one or more superior beings is a popular one. Creation is an idea in Christianity that uses a single superior being (God) as a foundation. As you have pointed out, the moderator expected to prove that evolution is a philosophy. I suspect that he wants to do so in order that he may begin comparing evolution and creation on philosophical or religious grounds. The clear fallacy in the if-then statements above is the assumption that some redeemer (Jesus) is needed. Since Christ is an important foundation of Christianity, I also suspect that the creationists' motives are purely religious when the surface of their "research" is stripped away. As I further think about this controversy, I am further confused as to why any knowledgable person can talk about the two in parallel without tripping over themselves. The efforts of the creationists fail miserably because it is impossible for science to make room for the magical and the supernatural. ______________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu }
feikema@mmm.UUCP (John Feikema) (09/20/85)
)In terms of science, creation is not valid in principle in the first place. >Therefore, there is no place for creation in science. > >Christianity is a religion. Religions conflict with science in, among other >things, that they freely recognize the magical and the supernatural as real >entities some times using them as foundations. The idea of a set of one or >more superior beings is a popular one. Creation is an idea in Christianity >that uses a single superior being (God) as a foundation. > >Keebler { hua@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu } Just a few comments here. I hesistate to speak for a "Creationists" but there were a few statements I felt it was important to respond to. Religion (at least Christianity) doesn't freely recognize the majical and supernatural as real entities, at least not in the sense that I think you mean. Christianity is based on the fact that an omnipotent being, GOD, created the world. This creation was not "outside" of physical laws. In fact GOD is the basis fo physics itself. When present day Quantum mechanics was first being theorized, many aspects of Newtonian physics had to be enhanced. I believe that it is the same with creation itself. GOD created the universe and man, HE did it with the laws of physics that HE wrote, HE continues to operate within those laws. Miracles, and even original human thought is merely evidence that the laws of physics that GOD wrote, are orders of magnitute above our present understanding and perhaps even our ability to understand (although I certainly advocate trying) the real fabric of the universe. John Feikema
hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (10/04/85)
______________________________________________________________________________ Just some quick responses here. If you respond, please post to net.religion, and I will look for it there. > { From: feikema@mmm.UUCP (John Feikema) } > > > Religions conflict with science in, among other things, that they freely > > recognize the magical and the supernatural as real entities some times > > using them as foundations. > > ... Religion (at least Christianity) doesn't freely recognize the majical > and supernatural as real entities, at least not in the sense that I think > you mean. Agreed. I really meant to say that by allowing for supernatural entities, religions conflict with science. > Christianity is based on the fact that an omnipotent being, GOD, created > the world. This creation was not "outside" of physical laws. That's quite an assumption ... that a "GOD" created the world ... more specifically, that "He" created it with laws that "He" designed ... that these laws still exist ...? What evidence do you have to support this? > Miracles, and even original human thought is merely evidence that the > laws of physics that GOD wrote, are orders of magnitute above our present > understanding and perhaps even our ability to understand (although I > certainly advocate trying) the real fabric of the universe. If these laws are "orders magnitude above our present understanding", how do you expect anyone to be able to figure out that they exist? What kind of evidence could possibly support the existence of laws beyond our under- standing? You have already assumed that God exists, of course, which is not support- able by science by any means (certainly not the Christian God which you mostly likely speak of). Remember ... if God created physical laws, he must be able to circumvent them or make up new ones. If this is really the case, then science has no value whatsoever as it cannot discover any real useful information that will most likely apply beyond the next moment. ______________________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu }
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (10/05/85)
> [Ernest Hua] >> { From: feikema@mmm.UUCP (John Feikema) } >>> Religions conflict with science in, among other things, that they freely >>> recognize the magical and the supernatural as real entities some times >>> using them as foundations. >> ... Religion (at least Christianity) doesn't freely recognize the majical >> and supernatural as real entities, at least not in the sense that I think >> you mean. > Agreed. I really meant to say that by allowing for supernatural entities, > religions conflict with science. When "science" is equated with "naturalism". However, the word "science" means "the search for knowledge". It does not specify that the search must be naturalistic. Such seems to be the meaning in modern times, true. But that meaning is not a logical necessity. >> Christianity is based on the fact that an omnipotent being, GOD, created >> the world. This creation was not "outside" of physical laws. > That's quite an assumption ... that a "GOD" created the world ... more > specifically, that "He" created it with laws that "He" designed ... that > these laws still exist ...? What evidence do you have to support this? It was observed for you long ago that one does not prove assumptions. One assumes them, and proceeds from there. >> Miracles, and even original human thought is merely evidence that the >> laws of physics that GOD wrote, are orders of magnitute above our present >> understanding and perhaps even our ability to understand (although I >> certainly advocate trying) the real fabric of the universe. > If these laws are "orders magnitude above our present understanding", how > do you expect anyone to be able to figure out that they exist? What kind > of evidence could possibly support the existence of laws beyond our under- > standing? Read what he wrote. The key word is "present". Our present understanding of several phenomena is now orders of magnitude above what it used to be. For instance, the processes involved in putting a man on the moon are now understood much better than, say, two thousand years ago. The irony of your comment is that in it you deny (without meaning to, probably) the cumulative nature of scientific endeavor, in asserting that our understanding will not reach certain levels. Note also your error of interpretation. John did not say that the laws *are* above our understanding (as you seem to assume), but that they *may* be. > You have already assumed that God exists, of course, which is not support- > able by science by any means (certainly not the Christian God which you > mostly likely speak of). Remember ... if God created physical laws, he > must be able to circumvent them or make up new ones. If this is really > the case, then science has no value whatsoever as it cannot discover any > real useful information that will most likely apply beyond the next moment. Assuming that such a God *must* be arbitrary and capricious from moment to moment. It was observed for you long ago that this assumption (which is inherent in your comment) is made by few who believe in the existence of this God. Note also your ignorance of the historical development of scientific investigation: Modern scientific enterprise (in western circles, at least) has its most fundamental roots in the foundation laid by those who believed that God was reasonable and consistent, and that His creation was ordered according to those attributes, and therefore could be investigated under the assumption that laws and processes found to hold today would also hold tomorrow. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "The voice of the Lord is full of majesty." | Psalm 29:4