Challenge to both sides
Posted by Helen on September 10, 1998 at 23:26:37:
This article was emailed to me. Although it is primarily a critique of the role natural selection plays in terms of evolution, it does not miss throwing down a bit of a gauntlet for the creationists as well. It is not a short sound bite type of thing, but I thought it was well worth the read.
Paradigm Shift--The Rise of a New Biology
Posted by MEYER on September 10, 1998 at 23:50:34:
At the end he says "In the creationist perspective the immediate creation of each living form seems to cut short any unifying research program, unless it is conceived of very differently."
No matter what, the scientific facts should lead to the unifying theory, no matter what. I think the true gauntlet is what we make of it. Because sometimes the facts are not scientific.
Response to MEYER
Posted by Helen on September 11, 1998 at 00:28:35:
I think the facts do lead to a unifying theory; but the key to the author's statement and your statment is in his "unless it is conceived of very differently." One of the problems we face as creationists is the fact that most of us were raised evolutionists and still have that taxonomic ranking, that mindset, etc. that we are dealing with. It takes a long time to peel off years of indoctrination and be really free to look at the facts simply as they are.
Come to think of it, perhaps we don't need a unifying theory in the sense that evolution tries for one. We acknowledge a unifying God. Colossians 1:17 says " . . . in him all things hold together." That sounds unifying to me . . . :-)
Response to Helen
Posted by MEYER on September 11, 1998 at 08:45:40:
I agree the facts do lead to a unifying theory, but the "scientific" facts do not. What I mean is relationships with God are not scientifically testable, or observable. When we pray, the fact is, our prayers are heard. When we die physically, the fact is it is only the beginning of eternity for us.
It is a fine line sometimes between scienctific facts and Facts. Although I do believe more and more that evidence eventually leads God, it will never be absolute.
Response to MEYER
Posted by Helen on September 11, 1998 at 09:37:58:
IMHO, you have hit what are probably the two most important points there that could be made on this board: that there is a factual reality beyond the naturalistic reality we work with in science and that faith will always be required, for that reason. If God could be "proved" naturalistically, He would only be part of nature, and not its Creator.