RE: "Scientific" position on philosophical questions

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Sun, 11 Jul 1999 11:54:13 -0700

Pim wrote:
>It seems you are confusingf science "random mutations and natural selection"
>with atheism. However random mutations and natural selection are not
inherently
>atheist beliefs. Actually in my interpretation of religion I consider
Christianity
>very compatible with the reality of science. That God used natural methods
to >createhardly undermines my faith. So your suggestion that this is somehow
>forcing atheism is based on severely flawed logic.
>Pim

Hi Pim,

Bertvan: Are you saying you are a devout theist who believes "God" used "random
mutation and natural selection" to create nature's diversity? Are you
committed to any particular brand of theism? Christianity, Baptist, Greek
Orthodox, Moslem, etc.,? I have no objections to, or arguments against,
anyone's philosophical beliefs. I'm merely curious, and would like to
understand more about your religion. I hadn't before met anyone passionately
defending "random mutation and natural selection" who wasn't an atheist, and
am truly eager to understand such a viewpoint. (Understanding each others
view points is the most we can hope for in these discussions. I doubt
anyone's beliefs are ever changed.)

I pointed out that your assertion that these are inherently atheistic beliefs are incorrect. There are millions of religious people who actually are quite happy in their reconciliation of the reality of science and their faith.

Bertvan: While I am grateful to many religious people for pointing out the flaws
inherent in "random mutation and natural selection", as an agnostic, my
objection to the theory was never religious.

I have seen few religious people pointing out inherent flaws in evolution. But perhaps you can share some of these with us. Just claiming to be agnostic does not make your reasoning more defensible if they are based on fallacious religious assumptions.

Bertvan: I consider it obviously flawed science-- silly, simplistic and unsupported by the evidence. If I did believe in a god, it would be one capable of thinking up something better than such a crude mechanism as "random mutation and natural selection". Even I could do better than that, and I am far from god-like.

That's quite ironic, to see you claim that you could do "better". And what is the standard you are using here to judge "better"? What is the motivation of this God you are comparing yourself to? I am sure that you must have the answers to these questions. I understand that you consider it flawed science, if you base your opposition to it on religious reasoning.