From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Science and Religion
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:48:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.002529.25659@u.washington.edu> jma@milton.u.washington.edu (Marty Anderson) writes:
>
>I have three degrees in science and am a Bible believing creationist.
>Of course, what *you* mean by "creationist" may be a lot different than
>what *I* mean by the term.  I take it to refer to someone who believes that
>God created the universe and the world out of nothing.  Has science proven
>that God did not create the world or the universe out of nothing?  Hardly!
>It is my opinion that the creationist position is, in fact, the *only*
>reasonable position after an examination of the historical and scientific
>facts.  (I won't present the evidence here although I'm willing to continue
>at another time.)

     Please, please, please.  You were being so reasonable until you
     hit the last sentence.  Surely you do not believe that there will
     *ever* be scientific 'facts' that back up creation by a God
     within science?  Omnipotence and omniscence are completely 
     unfalsifiable.  Miracles produced by a creator are similarly
     flawed from the perspective of science.

>You'll notice that I included historical evidence along with scientific
>evidence.  It's sad to see so many modern scientists in the careless
>position of thinking that scientific evidence in the *only* evidence.
>If this was a reasonable thing to do then only scientific evidence would
>be permitted in a court of law - one place where the search for truth is
>supposed to reign.  In reality, evidence does not necessarily only come
>from scientific investigation.  (Most people reasonably believe that
>George Washington was the 1st president of the United States in spite
>of the fact that science cannot prove that he was.)

     It is the only evidence *in* science.  If we admit other types,
     the pursuit becomes a worthless democratic shouting match.

     Belief in GW as president is hardly a 'scientific belief'.

>Concerning the issue at hand, if God expects us to reasonably believe in
>Him, a preponderance of the evidence, from all sources, must be in His
>favor.  And, if God does exist, we, if we're reasonable, should be prepared
>to accept evidence of Him *wherever* He supplies it.  Science is not the
>mother of all evidence.  (Those who unfortunately equate "logic" and
>"science" need to realize that logic is a prerequisite to *all* thought -
>not just scientific investigation.)

     It is within science.  Outside is the business of other newsgroups.

     By the way, 'logic' is hardly a prerequisite for all thought.
     Does the thought that you'd like a cheesburger have a 'logical'
     basis?  Can you supply the ultimate premise for *any* of your thoughts?
     Basically, we don't appear to think that way at all except in
     restricted circumstances.

>In conclusion, I would just like to submit that those would presume to be
>logical should be willing to examine all of the evidence in the search for
>truth.  It is my opinion that the historical evidence abundantly shows
>that the Bible is historical, reliable, and the very Word of God.  The
>Bible says that the primary proof for God comes through Jesus Christ who
>provided sufficient evidence for people to reasonably put their faith in
>Him.  But, those who are *unwilling* to face historical evidence as well as
>the evidence provided by science and other sources cannot reasonably expect
>to find truth, or God.

     Truth is not the subject of science.  Your opinion about God is
     outside of science.

                               dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics