Big bang (was government thread)

[John Grehan]

At 11:28 PM 12/11/01 -0500, you wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stan Gorodenski" <stanlep at extremezone.com>
>
>
> >  "  Both Creationists and Evolutionists predict (by very different
> >models and time frames) that eventually all that is will collapse and
> >revert to nothing again.  Both Creationists and Evolutionists state that
> >post this collapse, there will be a "new heaven and earth" or "another big
> >bang".  [quoting me]

The Big Bang theory is just a theory produced by astrophysicists. Other 
"evolutionists"
may or may not ascribe to it, or they may be theory neutral on the question 
(e.g. myself).

>  The first is by a
>formerly non-religious molecular scientist who was driven by the "evidence"
>to the conclusion that the Universe is clearly designed and therefore there
>must be a Designer.  Very interesting book - void of religion.

In some ways this may be problematic. The question of whether the universe 
is "designed" is clearly a theological or religious matter. In terms of 
"evidence" there is none that is not "interpreted" by theological 
perspectives that can point either way. Evolutionary theory may theorize 
organic evolution, but in terms of empirical evidence it cannot judge the 
matter of a creator either way. So there may be no formal religion in the 
book, but it is a religious interpretation on the ultimate nature of the 
universe and everything, so its religious in my book.

>The other
>book I have not read.  A member of my church has and has relayed a number
>of things in it to me.  I plan on reading it.  Its author is not religious,
>and when coming to points that might indicate Divine presence or action,
>dismisses this as not possible due to his atheistic views (this is what I
>have been told).

This also seems problematic in some ways. If Divine creation is just a 
matter of ordinary every day empirical "evidence" it would seem to degrade 
religion as just another theory subject to the wimseys of philosophical 
machinations over evidence (for in science at least all "evidence" is 
evidence only by virtue of being given that status within a particular 
philosophical framework). From what little I understand of religion (an I 
may well be corrected by specialists on this list) subjecting religious 
fidelity to "evidence" rather than faith is a bit of a heresy among many 
religions.

>depart greatly from traditional creationism.  I see no contradiction
>whatsoever between science and the Bible.

And from my perspective the "science" of evolution is not simply the 
proposition that organic
life evolves (although that's where the evolution-creation debate usually 
gets stuck and that's what makes the debate theological in my mind), but 
how that framework generates new research programs and generates new 
insights into the empirical world not accessible other than from theory 
(i.e. theory anticipates future empirical discovery).

Now hopefully moths and butterflies can continue to exist without worrying 
about such matters!


John Grehan




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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl