Posted on 10/13/2009 4:00:42 AM PDT by xcamel
When the poet Matthew Arnold wrote of faith's "melancholy, long, withdrawing roar," the thought was that scientific inquiry had forever undermined claims to certitude. In hindsight we see Arnold was only half right. In place of Genesis we now have scientism—the idea that science alone can speak truth about man and his world.
In contrast to the majority of scientists whose wondrous discoveries seem to inspire humility, today's advocates of scientism can be every bit as dogmatic as the William Jennings Bryans of yesteryear. We saw an example a week ago, when the New York Times reported that many scientists view "outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Genuine science would be in complete agreement with The Word Of God, from which and from whom all knowledge (science comes from the Latin route for knowledge) comes.
Now, there is imaging equipment to measure the "divine Forces" and see where they originate.
Its a very similar situation to when the imaging equipment known as the telescope was invented
Religion and science sure work for me.
Thank God.
I would put this to Dawkins:
If human thought occurs in a closed system of cause and effect, then the very neuron collisions that provoked the criticisms framed by his brain are mere events. An “event” cannot be true or false. A collision between elementary particles cannot be “true” or “false.” It just happens. Two particles do not collide “truly” or “falsely.” They just collide. Period. Every time Dawkins claims his brain activity leads to conclusions logically superior to those of other (”creationst”) collisions, he is cutting the rug from under himself. Dawkins closed-system argument means that rhetorical logic cannot even exist.
In the beginning God created evolution.
Bad practice, based on limited information from an arguably biased source. IMHO.
How then, did reproduction evolve?
Even if that were true, which is tenuous, the problem is we have no way of knowing when we have reached that point of agreement. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no method to determine what is true. We can can only ever know what is not true through contradiction. That is why all theories in science are tentative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.