A Common Misconception among Evolutionists Re: Creation Science

taguebw at REMOVEwfu.edu taguebw at REMOVEwfu.edu
Fri Oct 9 05:34:42 EST 1998


In article <361D691F.EF463E4E at earthlink.net>, Ray Lanthier
<rlanthier at earthlink.net> wrote:

[big snip]

To cut to the heart of the matter: you are defining the word faith in
different ways and use the slippery definitions to make your points. When
I refer to faith, I am refering to "belief in the unknowable" such as the
existence of God. Science is an observation of the knowable. Science is a
group activity -- my observation needs to be corroborated by others and
repeated by others.
If I observe a lake in the desert with my eyes, then I touch it with my
hands, I ask others to look and touch. If the overwhelming evidence is
that the lake does not exist, I understand that in this instance my eyes
are deceiving me. It is the weight of the evidence that is important, not
the single observation by me by a single technique but multiple
observations by multiple observers with multiple techniques.

>> Order?: Probably not, the world is chaotic and probabilistic.
>There is predictability.
Then we agree -- the world is probabilistic. It is not certain.


>Faith is self-evidence.
          ^^^^
Again we agree -- your faith is evidence for *you*; my faith is evidence
for me*; your faith is not evidence for me. If the data cannot be shared
by independent observers it is not scientific evidence.




>>Besides, you are defining faith fairly loosely.

"evidence of a higher order than physical perception" is hardly loose. It
is similar to Peter's (the
apostle)  'evidence of things unseen"

 [snip]

>We know
>that Nature will continue to behave in a similar way. These bits of
knowledge >give us Faith that we
>can continue to discover more. 

So you *are* using faith in different ways to make your argument. Here you
are using faith as "confidence in the predictable nature of the universe;
that what I observe today I shall observe tomorrow". This is a different
faith than "belief in that which cannot be know" Get your thinking
straight.



>Nevertheless there is no antagonism between faith and reason, beween
science and religion.
We can agree on this also for the most part. But I would say there is no
antagonism only when religion does not use faith to make scientific
arguments and only science does not use reason to discuss matters of
faith.


My 2 electrons,
Brian

-- 
Remove "REMOVE" to reply



More information about the Bioforum mailing list