Posted on 04/14/2002 12:31:25 AM PDT by sourcery
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"/>
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||
You're basically saying that, whenever science finds or implies a lack of design, it has strayed into theology. It's going to do that a lot.
No, I'm saying that finding or implying design or the lack of it is subjective, and not scientific. To me, math, physics, chemistry, biology, and even evolution look like design. To another, they might not. But neither of us is one up on the other. That's why science should remain agnostic.
A converse to your statement above imight be: wherever science doesn't find or imply God, we must presume random or nature. There's no need, and the presumption is actually irrelevant to science.
Is a sincere scientist going to accept "random did it" or "nature did it," any more than he would "God did it?" If he sets all three aside, the inquiry proceeds anyway.
What's the downside to an agnostic science?
"Random" is often the wrong word. When you find a cause and it isn't magic--so far, it's never been magic--"nature" is the right word.
I'm not pushing any theological or even philosophical consequences of evolution, an old earth, the Big Bang, whatever. I merely insist that they have earned a place in science and science class. I'm not invading somebody's church with pictures of Archaeopteryx and yelling "Repent, superstitious idolators!" The converse relationship does not apply.
What caused Nature?
What caused God?
Agnosticism requires us to throw out both.
Dude! You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters!
Why do you think so?
More correctly, nothing, not science and not religion, answers the question "What caused nature?"
OK, maybe you say, "God is outside of nature?" Still I ask, "What caused God?"
So you say, "God is outside of time. Nothing caused God."
And I say, "How'd that happen?"
Science will be lucky if it ever figures out in any real detail how the Big Bang happened. That shouldn't be a big strike against it since everything else is later than that.
And it's not like anybody else knows.
Shouldn't that make you a Chica?
And the distinction between "natural" and "non-natural" is misunderstood. That which exists--is real--is natural. "Non-natural" is actually synonomous with "unreal" or "untrue."
Religion can answer it, but it's a matter of faith whether you accept that answer as true.
Different rules for religion than science.
Science will be lucky if it ever figures out in any real detail how the Big Bang happened. That shouldn't be a big strike against it since everything else is later than that.
I completely agree, as far as science is concerned. The outer limitations of scientific knowledge don't make the knowable content any less significant.
And it's not like anybody else knows.
That's not a scientific statement... it would require faith to believe it.
Given that, anything which is true beyond nature would fall into the realm of the supernatural, and is beyond the scope of science.
I tend to think it's between "natural" and "magical."
And the distinction between "natural" and "non-natural" is misunderstood. That which exists--is real--is natural. "Non-natural" is actually synonomous with "unreal" or "untrue."
So far at least, "magic" is "unnatural" and is unreal and untrue. I see potential for agreement.
Sabertooth: That's not a scientific statement... it would require faith to believe it.
I suppose. True agnosticism is not knowing that stuff and not understanding how anyone can think they know that stuff. If I seem to be falling away from agnosticism, I'm not yet. I've been an agnostic since before I admitted it, before I hit my teen years. I know how to be one.
I disagree, but not scientifically. Nor can you hold that position scientifically.
One can't speculate on what might be beyond the space-time continuum on the basis of anything scientific, since science only deals with what is inside of it. To do so goes beyond the bounds of agnosticism.
The Bible, for example, speaks of a time-like concept called "Eternity," that is distinct from time. But Eternity neither be ruled in or out, scientifically.
Yeah, you do pretty well.... It's just a fine line, no? Always treading the border.
My complaint is with those who claim agnosticism, but are actually veiled atheists.
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.
n the last decade or so, creationism has grown sophisticated. Oh, the old-fashioned creationists are still around, especially in the Bible Belt. They're the ones who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that God created it and all its inhabitants in six days and that fossils are a product of Noah's flood. In the early 1990's, however, a new breed of creationists appeared. These ''neo-creos,'' as they have been called, are no Dogpatch hayseeds. They have Ph.D.'s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific and philosophical, invoking esoteric ideas in molecular biology, information theory and the logic of hypothesis testing. 