Re: Anti-religious

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:18:01 +0000 (UTC), moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx said:

ey.markov@xxxxxxxxx (Yisroel Markov) writes:
moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
Don Levey <Don_SCJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@xxxxxxx> writes:
<moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Steve Goldfarb" <slg@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

snip

Evolution is not a "theory" in the sense you're pretending it is.

It's probably not even that good a theory either but that's the
word _they_ use.

It's the best one available that doesn't involve a supernatural
explanation. So that's the only explanation science has to go on.

Exactly. Since "science" has insisted it will not accept anything
"supernatural" it has to fall back on that "theory".

That's a tad unfair. And why the scare quotes? That's how science
works - by asking "can we explain this without anything supernatural?"

There is another big problem. BIAS. Creation means there is a
Creator. When we see this absolutely awesome andintricate creation,
then if we accept a creator, the immediate question is "why?". But
the answer to that question leads to obligations and rules. By
denying the existance of a Creator, they have removed the theological
basis for rules. What's left is the law of the jungle. But personally
there is no "right and wrong". On the contrary "anything goes". Who
says different.

That is even more unfair, Moshe. Surely you know atheists and
non-theists who do not hold with the law of the jungle? I know I do.
Such an oversimplification is insulting.

[snip]

Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Anti-religious
    ... So that's the only explanation science has to go on. ... then if we accept a creator, ... Like the contradictions between the relativity theory and ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: More on Kitz/Dover
    ... >>Creator could be the first step in convincing students that they ... > particular brand of creator needs to be taught in science class. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... "If biological life needed something to create it then God ... needs explanation, positing a creator God is a good way to explain it) ... in principle possible for science to explain the universe. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Consciousness "Hard Problem"
    ... > it is only from actual examinable phenomena that any reliable ... > explanation will ever be developed. ... And much of today's 'science' was not examinable until ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Letter to the Editor: Defender of evolution offers no supporting proof
    ... Antony Black writes to defend evolutionary science, ... the work of a Creator. ... Biologists were working on the wonders of creation, ... before we can toss that type of explanation out. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading