No I wasn't actually making the statement. And I wasn't intending to make
the paraphrased statement.
What I was intending to point out was, that 'science'/*some* scientists turn
a blind eye to the possibility of a creator. They exclude that at all
turns.
I don't believe science can or ever will discover the true nature of God. On
the other hand when it comes to determining cause and effect, if it turns
out that the cause of the universe as we know it is a person, and not just a
thing or cataclysmic event, then science would *never* find that out because
they exclude that possibility. *If* they ignore the possibility of a creator
when it comes to the origins of life on earth, and *if* they are wrong, then
they are simply piecing together a bunch of facts, creating circumstantial
evidence because it fits the result they wish to conclude, as opposed to
letting the facts lead them to the conclusion. If science is supposed to be
a search for truth and knowledge, yet some scientists stubbornly refuse to
consider all options, how will that further the cause?
We have scientists behaving in the same manner that the Catholic church did
with the Copernican view of the solar system. Tunnel-vision does not serve
the cause of truth.
I'm actually trying stay out of this thread...
Tom C.
From: Keith McGuinness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:35:20 +0930
Tom C wrote:
"If we put to one side theological approaches to this ultimate issue, what
rational pathways forward are on offer from the scientific community? "
You seem to be creating a false dichotomoy: if science can't explain it
*now*, then the answer *has* to be God.
This is not compelling.
Why can't it just be that we don't know the answer now?
There's plenty of things I can't explain. That doesn't mean that I have to
believe that God made them happen.
Keith McG
