From: Walter Hicks (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 21:07:44 EDT
george murphy wrote in part:
> ...........their purpose, which is more anti-"naturalism" than pro-any
> particular alternative to evolution.
Since when is the motivation of an advocate a measure of the validity
of his idea?
I think that is precisely the point that many anti-science folks are trying to
raise. Science is neat ,but it really rests on pure faith in naturalism.
Scientists point to the many times it has worked in the past and then
that it should be accepted as a universal truth (ignoring all current
might add). That is indeed philosophy, not science. Science itself
only rests upon
this philosophy lest it crumble. Why is it necessary to believe that science is
some magical approach that can figure out everything about God's
universe while God
never interacts with His creation? That is surely theology.
I think that the suggestion that this be discussed in public schools in a
philosophy class is a fine one. Why would a theologian ever disagree with it?
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 29 2002 - 23:19:27 EDT