Jerry Avins <jya at ieee.org> wrote in message news:<3DFD5A4A.43BDFB7D at ieee.org>...
> Albert van der Horst wrote:
> > In article <3DF60CF0.605F43E at ieee.org>, Jerry Avins <jya at ieee.org> wrote:
> > >jmdrake wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As a creationist who is also a scientist I don't know where that puts
> > >> me. Not that I really care.
> > >>
> > > ...
> > >
> > >I see a difference between a creationist who is a scientist and the
> > >doctrine of Scientific Creationism; don't you? It seems to me that
> > >creationism, evolution, astrology, theism, and atheism are all matters
> > >of faith.
> > Evolution doesn't belong here. It is a scientific theory, not
> > a matter of faith.
> > You have been brain washed.
> > Living in the US, by any chance?
> > --
> > Albert van der Horst,Oranjestr 8,3511 RA UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
> > To suffer is the prerogative of the strong. The weak -- perish.
> > albert at spenarnc.xs4all.nlhttp://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst>> One last comment, then I shut up: Belief that science is the way to
> explain the world is in it self a matter of faith, one that we share.
No, science gives us an objective way of observing nature, it is not a
beleif. A beleif is blind and unfounded whereas science observes and
doesn`t allow for anything to be unfounded. Well, we could debate over
this for some branches of science like physics, agreed. But that is
not the point. The nature of science is to disallow false premisses.
Thinking that rigorous logic is the only way to go is not faith, it is
strongly anchored in reality, whereas faith, in god for example, is
not founded on anything one can observe.