GeoTheo

Hey Rick,
If you don't know what "a closed system of cause and effect" means, then how do you know "Science" doesn't hold to that?

scigirl

Theo,

I'll have to check that site out.

I will say that this doesn't have much to do with evolutionary theory. But when you are talking about the origins of life, or of the universe, you are going to be speculating. The environment in which earth, the universe, and life first formed, was probably fundamentally different than it is now. I doubt we will ever know how everything really started.

However, science deals with the natural. That's just how it works. Theo - are you offended when doctors look for naturalistic explanations for diseases, instead of satanic ones? Are you upset when meteorologists look for natural explanations of the weather? Why do only certain types of scientists get criticized by creationists?

scigirl

Dr Rick

"A closed system of cause and effect" is a vague phrase that could be interpreted in different ways, but if you qualify it by adding supernatural phenomena to whatever it is you mean, then I and everyone else can know that you are not refering to something within the realm of scientific inquiry. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

BTW, what exactly do you mean with that phrase?

GeoTheo

/%$#V;(5!)*& !!!!!!

nogods4me

well I think what we have here is a very important distinction.

have there been succesful "creationist scientists"? probably yes
have there been successful "creation scientists"? Nope, no such thing as "creation" science.

GeoTheo

Sorry, I was just frustrated.
So you are saying the the question of wheather God created the univese is outside of the realm of Scientific inquiry? In that case, Scientific inquiry is limited as a means of ascertianing truth.
And Scigirl, I as well as other Christians believe the Universe to be a THING. I am not a Hindu. I do not believe the Universe is composed of maya and that all is an illusion. So therefore it is entirely cossistent for me and other Christians to seek physical laws as to explanations as to how the Univese is ordered in all realms of Science.
If indeed the Univese is a THING and operates on the basis of physical laws and not inexplicable supernatural forces, or some illusion of the mind,
but it was itself created by a Supernatural being, then ignoring that possibility and seeking a naturalistic explanation will not only miss the mark but will be incapable of producing a valid explanation.

GeoTheo

Well, that is a distinction that apparently has been accepted only grudgingly.

Starboy

Hi GeoTheo,

What is a "closed system of cause and effect"? Just curious.

Starboy

nogods4me

And how do you suggest we explore the possibilty?

If god cannot be determined to exist using our "naturalistic" methods, then how? and if a being or entity, could be discovered, measured, quantified, using "naturalistic" methods, well then it wouldn't be supernatural, would it?

Starboy

GeoTheo,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I agree with you also, science is not a means of getting at the truth. I also agree that science is a limited means of observing the universe. However the problem here is that creationism is put forth by some as a science. Then, there are those that consider science as a kind of faith or religion. It appears to me that many of these types of discussions are the result of not getting those two things properly separated. The whole thing can be resolved by learning exactly what science is and is not.

Starboy