Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:12:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5675 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > and is not repeatable in any meaningful sense.
> > Ditto Big Bang again.
> The Big Bang may not be repeatable by definition (infinite expansion). That
> does not rule out that observations are consistent with the theory.
But I could say the same about the existence of an infinite Being.
<snipping here>
> Basically, in conflicts with religion, science is batting a thousand (never
> lost, to those who don't understand baseball terminology). It would appear
> that there is something about religion that is inadequate to explaining the
> physical world around us. That conculsion is consistent with the results.
This is because science is using a loaded bat (to continue the metaphor). The
presuppositions of science are that if you can't test it, observe it, predict
it, etc, it isn't valid (or, better yet, real). Basically, whatever theory you
have, it must be able to stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method.
What about theories which *by definition* are not proveable using the
scientific method? Does the fact that they are outside of the ability for
science to explain them make them invalid? If so, why? Science is a great
tool which has served us well, but do we sometimes ask too much of it and rely
on it *too* greatly?
There *are* some things which science will never be able to explain, and I'm
not talking about philosophy or religion. I am talking about that which we
don't even *know* about-- a reality which we presuppose doesn't exist because
we haven't found evidence for it. And even if we caught a glimpse of it, we
would be powerless to even begin to try and explain it because of our limited
nature. Think of a four dimensional cube (hypercube):
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/hypercube.html
Confined to time-space, we will never be able to comprehend this simple object
(as a 2 dimensional person could never grasp a cube passing through theirs).
I am not knocking science. I trust science for many things. There are some
things which science simply cannot and will not ever adequately explain, one of
which is the infinite. To rely on it to explain such things is as
irresponsible IMHO as a strict creationist denying carbon-dating.
-John
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) What? Of course the Big Bang theory makes predictions. Virtually any model makes predictions. You then see if observable data matches the predictions - in the case of the Big Bang, are galaxies (or more properly galactic groupings) moving away (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
