On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:59:20PM -0700, Tom C wrote: > > 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?
That's a strawman argument. Science doesn't start from an assumption that there is no creator - it just refuses to posit a creator absent any actual evidence for such a hypothesis. Asd for accusations of creating circumstantial facts to fit a pre- concieved hypothesis - take care of that beam in your eye, before you worry about the mote in that of the scientists.
