Science and religion in most respects support each other.
Adam was made of clay, supposedly. Clay could simply be a metaphor for dirt/soil/earth which could easily mean evolution created man. If God sparked that process, then he's still the creator.
Interesting, no?
I think you can believe in both Science and god, but I don't think you can mix the two. Maybe this is what the other poster was getting at.
Science is a theoretical goal. It's not about what is and isn't proven. Only that the mechanics of our physical existence can be proven using the scientific method to determine scientific laws.
Maybe there is something beyond all that Science can encompass. But this cannot be proven using science.
And this is why I find the direction the Why debate is taking rather scary. The idea that you can prove God exists by looking at physical evidence is a dangerous path.
Sure you can look at the complexity of nature and say, "boy, that looks very complex". But that's as far as you can go scientifically. All you can do from their is make a scientific hypothesis that God is the reason behind the complexity. But then, when you are unable to test this hypothesis you must move onto another hypothesis. End of story.
That is how the scientific method works. If you don't know how something works, you must use the scientific method until you have a testable answer to your question.
And this is why ID is not science. It's metaphysics. Which may sound like a type of science, but really is just guessing with logic. And therefore it is more religion than science, because the answers you derive are only true if you believe in them.
Metaphysical discussion is still important. We are human after all, and the ability to imagine should not be wasted. If we want to imagine that a Creator does exist, and then use logic to deduce that a creation as significant as existence would no doubt involve significant amounts of complexity, then hey, what's the harm.
But it's not science.
I believe in science.
I don't usually believe in God.
This is because my own metaphisical intuition says that to argue a creator is logically evident is to say:
Nothing can be infinite in time and therefore existence must have been started (or have been created) by something else. And this somethings else, God, did not have to be created because it is infinite in time.
From a philisophical point of view, this just seems wrong to me.
Fortunately you can't apply science or metaphysical logic to every human experience. Anyone trying to completely explain life needs loosen their grip on the steering wheel a bit. So if I have faith, it is a faith in that life can't be fully comprehended.
To me, God is what I don't want to know.
Last edited by Phate; December 14th, 2005 at 02:50 PM
Studio 21
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
the creationist theory shud be taught, not only from a
christian ethos, but by as many diverse cultures as possible...
respect for all religions and races... wud be better for everyone...
science destroys the spirit,the soul and reduces pure beauty to facts
and figures...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(new track daily)
So we should teach anything in schools as long as Someone/anyone believes in it, right???????....... And who would have the right to choose what is taught and what is not?....What kind of guidelines will be set for what can be taught????.. Or should we try to teach all beliefs from all cultures?Originally Posted by MADDUS
Posting Rules
Reply With Quote