David L Gent wrote:
Paul also wrote
The rampant dishonesty of the creationists is in sharp
contrast to the scientists' sense of responsibility to the truth. It
often feels as though the scientists are fighting with one arm tied behind
their backs, devoutly following the rules no matter how
Paul Smith noted:
creationism - as a movement - is an intentional lie.
And I think that creationists count on that (it's
certainly how they so routinely win those debates...).
Is it a lie to believe in the process of evolution, but still believe that there is an
supernatural force that
Rod -
I'm generally with you on this, particularly because of the careful
scientific/theological distinction that you made.
Is it a lie to believe in the process of evolution, but still believe
that there is an supernatural force that initated the process?
Of course honestly
Paul:
I hope that you didn't get the impression that I
was saying something like that -
Not at all. I have for the most part very much enjoyed this thread. It has been
refreshing to discuss these issues in a more collegial manner.
However, I don't think that the question of
whether
At 8:13 AM -0600 3/25/02, Rod Hetzel wrote:
I wonder, though, if supernatural and natural forces are mutually
exclusive or if both could coexist. When I see lightning, I don't assume
that some God up in the clouds is expressing his anger. I recognize and
understand the various physical laws
Paul Brandon stated:
The problem is one of scientific method.
Once you posit that supernatural (by
definition beyond the predictability
of natural laws) forces can be at work in the
present work, how can you experimentally
separate the effects of the natural from the
supernatural?
