>Christianity is founded on the truth of historical evidence; at some scale
>any science is based on accepting historical evidence (I have to believe
>the evidence that an experimant took place if I am to find importance in
>replicating it.)
>[snip]
You are quite right, the laws of science are obtained by making
generalizations of historical events, data obtained from successive
experiments. That is another issue that concerns me with evolutionary
theory, the uniqueness of historical events--much like in cosmology.
>>Scientists will one day claim that our actions are governed by our genes.
>Some already do, but not because the evidence supports it. A recent study
>(I think the summary I saw was in Nature) found that sexual behavior
>affects the brain structure in rats. This demonstrates yet another flaw in
>the claims that brain structure proves that sexual orientation is
>genetically predetermined.
It is this sort of nonsense which is undermining the whole of morality in
our society.
>>Long ago Descartes said that "matter cannot think" and so it is. Perhaps
>>C.S. Lewis said it best when he said that "reasoning is supernatural." It is
>>so obvious that a purely scientific approach to the whole of reality is apt
>>to lead to all sorts of nonsense.
>That doesn't stop people from trying. It was particularly entertaining to
>see a NOVA special on Steve Gould many years ago that proceeded directly
>from "there are no moral values inherent in nature" to "proving" that
>racism is wrong.
It is amazing how foolish scientist can be. How do they deal with their
wives? How do do they raise their kids? It is a puzzle for me to imagine. Of
course, they may leave their science at the doorsteps of their homes.
>>For instance, if evolution is true, why
>>not help it. Wasn't that the logic of Hitler?
>Also of Lenin, eugenicists, and social Darwinists. The answer is twofold.
>First, in the Bible, and (less clearly) in our consciouses, God has
>revealed that this approach is wrong.
That is, you must bring in morality which is outside the purview of science.
> Secondly, evolution, lacking an inherent direction, can't be
>"helped" and cannot say that a particular group is "better". Oppressing
>people who are not closely related to you can help increase your genetic
>fitness, but you must assume that "promoting my genetic fitness is good".
>Also, by this principle you have no grounds to complain if other folks do
>the same to you.
How do you explain insemination with sperms from Nobel laureates? Abortion
of babies who are not of the liking of their "parents?"
>>If evolution is true, is it possible that some races are less developed than
>>>others?
>Everyone who is alive today has had the same amount of time to evolve.
>Individual traits could be compared between different individuals to
>determine which are probably most similar to the ancestral condition.
>Different races are more similar to the ancestral condition in different
>ways, but "superiority" of the sort endorsed by racism is not a scientific
>term. I can scientifically determine that most people of other races are
>"superior" to me at getting a dark suntan, but that does not address the
>question of whether they are better than I am.
But wait, why do we have monkeys and apes nowadays? Why aren't they like us
or very much closer to us than what they are? I am arguing to show how
dangerous the evolutionary point of view of man is.
>>We must know what science is and what it is not in order to make some real
>>good >sense of all our experiences. Otherwise, Heaven helps us.
>This seems to be at the root of most of the trouble between religion and
>science.
>David Campbell
Of course, there are those for whom science is everything. That is so
nonsensical that I can't imagine how those who believe such a thing can live
a life consistent with their own philosophical point of view.
Moorad