: Floyd, dear friend,: : False. As Gideon has REPEATEDLY pointed out to you, science, unlike dogma, is open to change. In fact, evolutionary theory is constantly developing and offering a more and more accurate picture of the past. There is no religious aspect to this, it does not require faith and, once again, "evolution" is not about the beginning of the world. Please try to get that into your head.
: Hang on now. To include the possibility of a Creator in the discussion of science is not "dogmatic". To necessarily EXCLUDE the possibility of a Creator in said discussion is, in fact, dogmatic.
Hi Robert;
The thread I've been running with Copenhagen is about this exact issue, and I've had a similar discussion with Ryan, just a month or two down the page. I have not, will not, and in fact, can not exclude the possibility of a creator. I don't deny the possibility, in fact, I've repeatedly said that this IS a possibility, and it WOULD account for all the available data. The problem, and the reason why I don't usually include divine intervention as an explanation is that it is a completely non-evidential phenomenon. God, if he's interfering in the operation of the universe, covers his tracks so well that they are invisible (as, of course, he is quite capable of doing, by all accounts). Therefore, if God is interfering in the operation of the universe, he WANTS it to appear as though he is _not_ doing so, since he is deliberately (I assume) obscuring traces of his activity. In other words, I can not use his actions as "explanatory" in any purely materialist analysis, since he leaves no material traces, and my field of study does not focus on non-material phenomena. I'm not saying it's impossible for God to be the source of things, but rather, due to the nature of God, and the nature of the lack of material evidence he leaves of any supposed interference in the universe, I can't use him as a part of a purely material explanation. Since purely material explanation is what I do for a living, God can't be part of my professional explanations for things unless and until he starts leaving unambiguous physical evidence of his actions. I hope I was more clear that time.
[snip]
: God Bless.
Thank you, again, for your good wishes. I'd write more, but I have to go. The WTO is in town.
-Floyd
