--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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




Reply via email to