Tom C wrote:
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.
It must because God is, by definition, a supernatural being and
science deals only with natural phenomena. By natural we mean
phenomena which we can observe, either with our senses (perhaps
agumented by instrumentmentation). God cannot be so observed, so
cannot be studied or be the basis of a science.
Science is about patterns and explanations for them. God, as
he/she/it acts in arbitrary and unpredictable ways, has NO
explanatory power and adds nothing to any theory or hypothesis.
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?
God only becomes an option when he/she/it is included in a
testable hypothesis. God cannot be detected, therefore the only
possible evidence for or against a God hypothesis are the results
of actions performed by God. Some claim that "intelligent design"
is such evidence but plausible alternative explanations, not
requiring God, exist for such "design". Adding God adds nothing
to such explanations.
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.
It is NOT tunnel vision to ignore something which, by definition,
cannot be detected. If something cannot be detected, then the
only reason for believing it exists is faith and that is not a
sound basis for science.
I'm actually trying stay out of this thread...
Me too! We must both try harder... 8-)
Keith McG
