Re: Fall of evolved man

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:51:40 -0500 (EST)

At 02:43 AM 11/9/97 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
>At 10:45 AM 11/9/97, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>I am not denying any data.
>If you remember the supernova example I used to counter your suggestion that
>we can't determine when things happened out in outer space, then I would
>presume that you would now agree that this data should not be ignored. I
>never heard anything back from you about that issue.

I have no qualms on the age of the universe--few billion years. That is the
best human minds can infer today from the data. Would I bet my life on it, I
have my doubts.

>>It is a question of interpreting the data which
>>must invariably be based on all sorts of assumptions. First that the
>>question of origins is a scientific question and thus only science can
>>provide an answer. Second, make it clear how scientific conclusions are
>>obtained not only from the data but also by assuming models from whence
>>conclusions can be derived.
>Show how a different model can re-interpret the supernova example. What you
>are arguing for is solipcism, the belief that we can't know anything from
>observation. If solipsism is true, then we can't be sure of our salvation.

In science we are not dealing with certainty but with the best humans can do
in understanding Nature or, for that matter, the Word of God. I do not have
to prove things exist, like philosophers claim we have to, since Scripture
tells me of a Creator which created. How He did it, I do not know. However,
I have my doubts on people who claim that they can find out what happened
from the beginning by studying what surrounds them now. The notion of
proving something, in the sense of mathematical rigor, is not that simple.

>> Make it clear that evolution theory and
>>cosmology are purely deductive and not experimental sciences. Remember the
>>word science conjures its prototype physics which is an experimental science.
>Once again, I challenge you to show me how the supernova SN1987a can be
>re-interpreted based upon a different deductive model and not have it
>violate observational data. I don't think you can do this.

I have accepted what you said about the supernova. But again I will not bet
my life on your findings.

>Your position is in some regards similar to my friend John McKiness. He
>beleives that science and religion are two separate realms of knowledge and
>thus can not be mixed Thus sceince has nothing to say about religion. You
>are saying that science provides no true knowledge and thus can not have
>anything to say about religion. The commonality is that neither of you want
>science to impact religion.

If I take the reductionist approach that physics underlies all the sciences,
then the subject matter of science and theology are totally distinct.
Genuine science deals with matter/energy, mind and body, and genuine
theology deals with the spiritual. Of course, in the resurrection of Christ,
a unique historical event thus outside the subject matter of science, some
of these issues may be interwoven.

Take care,