Thursday, October 14, 2004

the American tyranny - America hates freedom

Science, by its very nature, can never include God in its theories and formulas.

1. The only alternative to evolutionary theory is supernatural creation by God.
2. Science has a built-in bias against considering the supernatural.
3. Therefore, science can never disprove evolution.

I posted a response (below) to the following blog entry about Evolution versus the Bible:

The “evidence” for evolution is actually quite shaky, but because science, by its very nature, cannot even consider any other possibility, then evolution is the only view. Science, because of its very nature, will never, never disprove evolution! It just can’t. This is because science cannot allow for God/the supernatural as an explanation for anything, because science only deals with physical matter that can be dissected, burnt in a test tube, measured, weighed, etc.

You make an important point, Dave. If evolution is the only possibility for the origin of humans, then it does pose problems for the Bible. Nevertheless, when you realize the limits and boundaries of science, then evolution does not pose problems for the Bible.

1) I don’t know what you mean when you say “original sin,” but the idea that humans evolved destroys the concept of God creating humanity, meaning that there was death before Adam and Eve. If there was death before Adam and Eve, then death is not a result of human sin, which the Bible says started with Adam and Eve. Therefore, evolution destroys the origin and the meaning of sin and death. But it is sin and death that Jesus died to save us from. Therefore, evolution renders his death meaningless.

2) Nevertheless, evolution does not pose problems for the Bible once you realize that it is not a reasonable explanation for the creation of a whole new creature (like humans) or even for the universe. Even though it is the prevailing view in our very limited scientific world view.

Evolution within a species, sure, but the evolution of a whole new creature, like humans, where is the evidence? The fossil record never shows a “missing link” like and a fossil of a creature that is halfway evolved between a reptile and a mammal, or halfway evolved between a fish and a reptile. There are also other problems besides the fossil record.

The Philosopher’s “God”

Philosophers usually use the term “God” to refer to “the first cause” of the universe, or to the “intelligent designer.” Nothing else about the nature of God is implied. This can cause confusion during debates about the existence of God.
I posted a response to this weblog entry:
which is someone’s counter-argument to this argument:
which is an arguement for the existence of God.

My response (below) can be applied to the definition of “God” in most (or maybe all) arguments for existence of God.

I agree that the argument has problems, but it is still valid if by "God" one simply means any non-random cause. Most proofs for the existence of God only set out to prove the existence of "a first cause" or an "intelligent designer/creator" of the universe, which one can call God. It implies nothing else about the nature of God. So to refer to a non-random cause as "God," as you do, is fine for the purposes of this argument.

Your argument that an “nth dimension-dwelling entity” can be a non-random cause of the universe is fine, because for the purposes of this argument your “nth dimension-dwelling entity” can be the non-random cause and can be called God.

Your idea that the laws of physics could be a non-random cause for the universe does not make sense, because even if they are non-random, even they had to have a cause.