IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Creationism and other doctrines. Was Mindforth

Bruce Rennie bruce.rennie at shell.com.au
Wed Dec 18 19:30:58 EST 2002

John R. Strom wrote
"Dennis Clark" <dlc at io.frii.com> wrote in message
news:3e001ef0$0$16021$75868355 at news.frii.net...
> In comp.robotics.misc Jerry Avins <jya at ieee.org> wrote:
> [snip]
> : 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. In
> : the end, we believe what we choose believe. Unless, or course, our
> : beliefs are shaped by coercion, and that is unlikely except in a
> : theocracy of dictatorship. Yes, I live in the US, which is fortunately
> : (for a while yet, anyhow) neither.
> : Jerry
> : --
> : Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>   Sorry, errrt!  Wrong answer, come back and play again sometime.  Science
> is NOT faith.  This comment is foolish in the extreme.  Science depends upon
> observable and repeatable data.  Faith is what happens when you have no

[My additions]
Some dictionary Definitions of the word SCIENCE (www.dictionay.com)

1a). The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
1b). Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 
1c). Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 
2). Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a
suitcase down to a science.
3). An activity that appears to require study and method: the science
of purchasing.
4). Knowledge, especially that gained through experience. 

I would take that science is a methodology that can be used in
obtaining information. It still takes faith that the methodology is
valid and appropriate for some range of problems. It cannot handle
every area of life - human relationships, beginnings, miracles, what
cannot yet be observed, etc.

[end additions]
> proof and wish to indulge in wishful thinking.  The ignorant "believe", the
> informed base decisions on what is known and observable.

[My additions]
You get go to bed of an evening believing that tomorrow will come, you
live your daily life believing many things will/will not occur - this
is all faith. But it is also experiential.

I believe in a personal God (Father - Papa - Daddy if you will) and in
a personal Saviour (Jesus Christ). This is personal experience (not
provable by science) and is relationship with my creator. Does that
restrict me from using science to do various things in my life.
Science is usable in some areas of my life but not in others - I don't
use science in my relationships with my wife, my daughter, my sons, my
God or people I meet on any day.

[end additions]
>   Calling science "faith" flies in the face of logic, it's not magic and does
> not require hand-waving nor missing stone tablets that someone, sometime,
> said they believe they saw.  Show me a miracle that is rigorously repeatable
> (not just something we don't understand yet, like a baby) and I'll show you
> the science that can explain it.

[My additions]
You misunderstand miracles - these can be non-repeatable events that
can defy all the rules or they may fall in the rules but are not
explanable as to why they happened at that point in time.

Some people will call some of these things co-incidence, others will
call it intervention, and others will call it nonsense.
[end additions]
>   This "faith" nonsense (in the purest sense of the word "nonsense") has
> caused more grief and suffering than even our worst scientific debacles to
> date.  We're better off without it (that is an opinion).

[John's response]
Dennis, what you are missing is that you are in fact expressing
"faith" when
you express the concept of "observable" and "repeatable".  I.e., you
expressing FAITH that an observable, repeatable phenomenon is in FACT
observable and repeatable.
[stuff removed]
[end of John's response]

"Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aichip at cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Mk1M9.402921$fa.8360994 at twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>     "Faith" is exactly the opposite of "verifiable".  Matter of faith are
> matters of decree and belief, and no experiment can be devised to test the

[my response]
Is it?

Again some dictionary definitions

1). Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a
person, idea, or thing.
2). Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3). Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's
4). often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure
belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5). The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 
6). A set of principles or beliefs. 

So by 1). and 6). belief in Science is an act of faith. It gives you a
set of tenets by which you can live or work or whatever.

Arguments of this nature simply get people hot under the collar and
eventually lead nowhere. And everyone will still fall back on what
they believe (experiential or intellectual).

Even Albert's comment shows his belief

[Quote from previous message]
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
[end quote]

The concept of evolution is a philosophy which has spawned a variety
of conflicting hypotheses. The biggest opponents of any of the various
evolutionary theses have been other evolutionists. The whole argument
sits in the realm of the past and cannot (from all that has been
expressed over the years) be repeatably tested or provide a predictive
set of outcomes. It is an attempt at an explanation of things we can
see. But it is not what I would classify as science but as philosophy.

I could say the same for "The Big Bang". A whole zoo of unverifable
hypotheses that attempt to explain observation but the predictive
results do not seem to be attainable, at least not at our current
level of technology. Yet there are theories that could be tested in
the laboratory that explain galaxy formation that do not start from
the idea of a big bang.

I personally believe that all of creation is in the hands of the
Creator. This is a matter of faith. The infinite is not comprehensible
to the finite. I take delight in idea that all of creation has been
made for us and is an example of the magnificence of God, even though
we have have screwed our planet into the ground through our choices
and our decisions.

[end response]
> belief system involved.  On the other hand, we can most certainly devise tests
> and experiments to see how reality performs, and this does not require blind,
> unsubstantiated belief.  Anyone anywhere can do the experiments, and they will
> get consistent results.
>     In faith, you must believe.  Reality does not care if you believe or not, it
> will still follow its rules.

[my response]
Yet you express that Reality is as you believe - is this not faith

> Cheers!
> Chip Shults
> My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Go in peace.


Bruce Rennie
(Disciple in trainig to Jesus Christ)

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net