Liberty said:
Evolutionists "require" nothing because science isn't trying to do anything but come up with viable explainations for phenomenon based upon evidence observed in the natural world.
How can you possibly make a statement like that when you know full well that science REQUIRES hypothesis. The hypothesis is the starting point of observation and testing. Now since the hypothesis of something from nothing in evolutionary theory is beyond our normal observation and indeed the laboratory, it remains a theory. However, as a theory it is useful in explaining many things. Since science can definitely falsify its current understanding of a something from nothing hypothesis that doesn't mean that evolution is false. It is the starting point or lack thereof that require a hypothesis or faith or whatever you want to call it for atheistic evolutionists.
Furthermore, to bring into the discussion morality/authority simply changes the discussion from that of logic to one of a philosophical nature.....just as I predicted that many do. The fact that the bible is fraught with errors really doesn't discount its usefulness in other aspects of practicality......much the same way the falsification of "something" from nothing" doesn't discount the value of evolutionary theory increasing our practical understanding of life.
Science books 200 years ago were laughable. Should we discard science? Hardly. Newtons' laws, though 300 years old help us explore our solar system. Other "science" of the time has been discarded.
I did like your characterization of science though..... "viable explanations for phenomen" Doesn't the consciousness of the human state constitute a phenomen just as its physical, molecular, and atomic structure constitute a phenomnon? It is the conscious awareness of being that is attempted to be addressed by religion to create a viable explanation for the purpose and practicalness of living as humans.
Please don't venerate science as a puritanical ephiphany of all knowledge without its own demons. It simply cannot answer questions that are unique to our species. When an animal ages it is many times eliminated by predators and increases the efficientness of the group. Like wise, eugenics would seem to be a logical progression of evolution for our species; but would infinitely decrease the meaning we assign to the uniqueness of being of our neighbors.
That is why debate between science and religion is healthy for our species. In my opinion, they help kep each other in check.
You make a good point about the resistance of change in some theological thought because it represents a threat to the current heirachy. Science has experienced the same resistance but has not enjoyed the influence over human society that its religious counterpart has. That is changing. If it had, I have no doubt that similar attrocities would be "sold" to the public as well.
Though our capacity for logic is vast, it would be a mistake to discard our other tools for creating meaning, however "illogical" they may be.
Edited by - Perry on 20 September 2002 20:36:59
