Big bang (was government thread)

Stan Gorodenski stanlep at
Wed Dec 12 18:44:02 EST 2001

I agree with everything you say.  Since your message began with 'From:
"Stan Gorodenski"', which is me, I hope this is an oversight and that
you already know everything you are responding to was written by Ron.

John Grehan wrote:
> At 11:28 PM 12/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Stan Gorodenski" <stanlep at>
> >
> >
> > >  "  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:


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list