A Common Misconception among Evolutionists Re: Creation Science

Ray Lanthier rlanthier at earthlink.net
Fri Oct 9 21:11:35 EST 1998



taguebw at REMOVEwfu.edu wrote:

> 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.

God is not unknowable. He is perhaps unobservable.

> 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.
>

The method of induction. Very good. A good thing in which to have faith.

> >> 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.
>

I have never defined faith as belief in that which we do not know.Faith is not antagonistic to
knowledge.

> >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