At 12:54 PM 8/7/99 -0700, you wrote:
>SJ: awking admits that "a so-called `theory of everything' to explain the
>universe ...might take longer than he had expected." and that "...we don't
>seem much nearer to our goal".
Pim:
>It's always bad to mix science and religion. To suggest that this means
that >science might never find a "theory of everything" is foolish.
Susan: The failure of science to explain something is the only hope of biblical
literalists. In the 19th century it was thought that organic molecules could
not possibly be synthesized by humans because they were the sole property of
God (only God can make a tree, proteins, or amino acids) the first organic
molecules (I can't remember which ones) were synthesized in the lab before
the 19th century ended.
God of the gaps... Interestingly enough this "god of the gaps" keeps reappearing in different forms through time. Behe's IC for instance or Dembski's ID.
Susan: For some reason biblical literalists seem to cling to the outer darkness
where they hope science can't go. They retreat as the light advances. You
are correct that it is foolish. It would seem to be more reasonable to
examine the ancient tales to find out what they have to teach rather than
attempting to make them into science texts--attempts which will always fail.
The universe is magnificent. To try to limit the universe to the
understanding of human beings who lived nearly 3000 years ago is tragic--and
foolish.
Well said.