From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:12:07 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug25.151754.9469@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
|In article <1992Aug24.175718.12093@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick) writes:

|>It is only Theistic Anti-Evolutionists who claim that a belief in
|>Evolution is Atheistic.  It is a lie, a damned lie, that is as
|>vile and putrid a lie as Lionel Tun's racist diatribe, ...
|
|If the doctrine of evolution is not atheistic (in the strict sense --
|existing without God, not denying God's existence), how does God fit
|in?  I may have seen only poor presentations of the material, but the
|impression I have received is "God is not relevant to the topic at
|hand." (as quoted from my post)

Yes, God is irrelevent to the study of evolution, and properly so.
He is also irrelevant to *all* of science.  That is the nature of
science.  It studies what is observable *within* the Universe, not
an unobservable external cause.

If *this* is your definition of atheistic, then *all* of science is
atheistic.  Most people tend to see the term 'atheistic' as implying
a definite belief that God does *not* exist.  No part of science, not
even evolutionary theory is atheistic in this more restricted, more
usual, sense of the word atheistic.

Maybe you should be promoted to Theistic Anti-Scientists.

|>: After this, they reach a conclusion which they find logicly consistant
|>: and branch out from that to the conclusion that their first point (no
|>: God) is proven.  That is not logicly sound.
|>
|>You are so right.  Your statement is not logically sound, for the simple
|>reason that it describes a 'logical conclusion' that takes place only
|>in minds such as yours that try to explicate the minds of those whom
|>you would gladly destroy, and of whom you are utterly ignorant, and
|>of whom you are irrationally afraid.
|
|I'm afraid that that conclusion is presented opten by the anti-creation
|faction in these discussions.  "We have evidence.  Who needs your God."

I do.  Or rather I need my God - yours is a drip.

But, when it comes to making conclusions about physical reality, I will
take the scientific approach, not a needlessly literal interpretation of
God's written word.

And I will not make the mistake of expecting the scientific results to
bear any relevance to the existance of God.
|
|This was (in case the intent was unclear) an admission that the same
|logic, with the initial assumption that God exists, also proves
|nothing.  IMO, the existence, or lack thereof, of God cannot be proven
|using logic.  It is the wrong domain.

Yep, I think we all agree there. So?  How is this supposed to make
evolutionary theory anti-Christian?
|
|>Your trap, sir, is that the figure that you call an "evolutionist", is
|>more abstract that any data structure you have ever seen, more a
|>fabric of chattering gossip, and more a dream of a fevered mind
|>than Poe's Telltale heart.  ...
|
|I don't recall refering to an "evolutionist" individual.  I refered to
|the "evolution" side of the debate.  Are you trying to say that there
|is not a group stating that life (and specific forms thereof)
|originated by evolution rather than special creation?

No, but he is saying that the positions, and philosophies, you attribute
to them are by no means based in reality.  You are constantly using straw-
man arguments.


-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com