>
> --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > "Her point is that it isn't *science* that provided you
> > with this meaning; science can't tell you whether it's
> > all just random or if there's something at work behind
> > it."
> >
> > Good point. I have to think about this more. I use evolutionary
> > theory as a sort of big picture reframe for my life, but I guess
> > that is not the science that is providing the perspective. It is
> > my use of the ideas in a psychological way.
>
> Sure. That it looks awful damn random as far as
> science can tell doesn't (and cannot) rule out
> randomness as a design element. So it's a matter
> of personal preference. The randomness that science
> sees does not dictate that one exclude the
> possibility of some ultimate design; one is free
> to believe either that there is or that there
> isn't (or to leave the question open, of course).
>
One common reconcilliation is to say that the Creator decided which cosmological
constants to use. Some values of those constants would definitely preclude any kind of
higher-level organization (life).
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
