Science and creationism
MWalker at gensym.com
Mon Aug 23 13:31:14 EDT 1999
John Shuey wrote:
<a bunch of stuff>
> Just don't call it science.
I'm not convinced that your definition of "science" is as absolute as you
think it is. Squishing all of what a creationist thinks and says through a
narrowly defined, predispositioned filter (also known as being dogmatic) is
equally unscientific. The supposition here is that we start off accepting
that we know nothing about the mechanisms that exist in nature -
particularly with regard to their origin. We then poke and probe, making
observations that will hopefully give us some insight. It is perfectly
scientific to, after many thousands of years of observation, come to the
conclusion that we STILL haven't got a clue, and that there must be
something far more intelligent than ourselves at work here. Many scientists
have come to exactly that conclusion - and in a scientifically satisfying
way. At least for me. You are welcome to come to your own conclusion.
Just don't get too comfortable sitting on a weak foundation. God, in
nature, has a crafted a wonderful (and merciful) way of confounding even our
most intelligent of scientists. And none of our research is as certain as
it appears in black and white.
More information about the Leps-l