Posted by Skeptic on March 19, 1999 at 11:11:18 {MWhYj191zS6uc}:
In Reply to: Evolutionism and Creationism posted by Jeffery M. Schwehm on March 19, 1999 at 08:38:15:
Interesting page. A different way of using the same old creationist's arguements.
:Science is never religiously neutral. Science deals with cause and effect. Unless one makes the dogmatic presupposition that causes can only be natural, it must be said that causes can be either natural or supernatural.
Simply untrue. Science is about experimentation and observation and drawing conclusions based on experimentation and observation.
No dogmaticism is involved in believing all causes are natural. There has never been an observation or experiment that indicated that a supernatural event has occurred.
Look at history: whenever knowledge has increased, the swing has been from supernatural to natural causes.
Note that over time, religion swings towards science, not science towards religion. Sickness was thought to be caused by demons; now it is by bacteria and virus'. No religion who claims sickness is caused by demons would be be taken seriously by other religious people.
:In the case of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the appearance of most, if not all, new species, science can show us no natural causes. In the case of the universe,
direct proof now exists that the cause, or causer, must transcend matter, energy, length, width, height, and time. In other words, the causer must be supernatural.
Eh? There is no evidence that whatever happened before our Universe's origin was supernatural. All the evidence still points to natural causes. He is arguing from personal incredulity.
As far as science having no explainations, well that is just a limitation of our present knowledge. This does not imply that God exists.
One could easily ask a theist, "How did God get there? How could God exist forever?"
:Similarly, faith is never scientifically neutral. It can dogmatically presuppose that natural processes had no part in creation. The New Testament, however, defines faith as belief and action based on established facts. The established facts, for example, tell us that stars, like raindrops, evolve under natural processes.
Basically true. However, if one only made their conclusions based on established facts, one would not need faith; one would be using knowledge, not faith.
A lack of established facts to support the Bible's claims is why the Bible says to "walk by faith, not sight."
:As a physicist, I have never seen a fundamental particle called a neutrino. But I have faith in its existence and act accordingly because of certain well-established facts.
These facts lead to only one logical conclusion: that neutrinos exist. No faith needed. The reasoning, experiments, etc. could be placed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and verified by his peers.
:As a Christian, I have never seen God. But I have faith in His existence and act accordingly because of certain well established facts.
These facts lead to more than one logical conclusion: that God exists, or that nature did it alone.
Any reasoning, experiments, etc. could be placed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and verified by his peers. I seriously doubt they would survive the peer-review process.
As knowledge increases, we find that the evidence supports the natural explaination. The religous explaination ends up changing to fit the
facts.
I'll put my money on science finding evidence for a natural explaination for the creation of the Universe before I'd bet a penny on religion finding any evidence.
SS