From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:54:47 GMT

julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:

>But now in order to discuss science and God we cannot start from
>assumptions that explicitly rule out a supernatural being: and,
>of course, we must not simply assume such a being exists; we should
>be open to evidence in the world and history and assess it.

	You cannot have a science BASED on the assumption that a
supernatural being exists and can be tested for. Science can only
find mechanistic explainations, it cannot verify the supernatural.
I am not saying that scientists cannot believe in God. I would
say that the problem is primarily one of language and Mankind's
inability to have absolute knowledge. He may use one language
to describe spritual experience, even the trancendant, but it
cannot be the same language as used by science. A hope of a religion
that uses scientific language and assumes the supernatural is a false
hope. It cannot be. Science is too circumscribed by the limitations
of human kowledge, its epistamology is too cautious, to allow it
to embrace the supernatural.

>The theories of physics patently do not include God but that is no
>reason for disbelieving in God, in fact the fact that we can understand
>some of the workings of the universe might lead us to consider a
>rational creator who has imprinted the universe with a reflection of
>this rationality.

	But not as science. Even if there is a rationality, a design,
and a designer, that may not be for us to know. What we can know is that
there is an order within nature and natural processes that we can model
with mechanisms. Now you can argue till you are blue in the face about
the metaphysics behind this, but that is not science. You can also
make arguments for a supernatural cause. Usually though, such arguments
have rather mundane imparatives, things close to home.

> The obvious fact that we can DO science makes me more
>sympathetic to a rational creator than, say, Descartes Evil Demon
>who might be tricking him, or the New Age's quasi-mystical, pseudo-
>scientific occultism. It might even allow us to distinguish between
>deities (or philosophies) that postulate a chaotic universe or
>a 19th century mechanical one.

	I couldn't agree. Science is neutral about causation. It cannot
prove local causation of events in hand let alone ultimate causation.
It is largely a figment of our imagination, albeit a very useful one,
then again so is God, albeit a very useful one. Now when are you
going to get it through your skull that you are not entitled to such
knowledge, nor am I. You cannot use science in your Holy cause.

>I notice that no creationists have taken up my postings, I am 
>disappointed.

>julian
 
	There aren't that many Creationists here any more. Maybe
after the end of the Republican Convention and they have become
emboldened once more from all the Conservative furior we will
hear from them, then again there is too much mumbojumbo about QM
in this thread for them. The stuff about QM is really beside the
point anyway, which is why you, Julian, are predisposed to see
moot questions in one way and not the other.

Bruce Salem