>Some attribute the rise of modern science in part to the belief in the
>freedom of God to order the universe however he pleases. That is, there is
>no mathematical or geometrical form that constrains him. This freed science
>from the shackles of Aristotelian and/or other philosophies that imposed
>some system on God and his creation. Scientists could only look at what's
>out there and conclude that God did it that way. Of course, this is
>empiricism.
>
>You will rightly observe that such a perspective puts belief in God prior
>to any evidence from the natural world. So, if we look at the biological
>world and see that the evidence points to evolution, we conclude that God
>did it that way. It is no stranger in biology than in physics or chemistry.
I am a flat out Bertrand Russel-style atheist and I have no problem with
that. As you imply elsewhere in your post, what's out there is wonderful. If
some god or other is the author of it all, then so be it. It's the
anti-evolutionists who ignore what's out there, misrepresent what's out
there or refuse to accept what's out there that infuriate me and keeps me in
this debate.
I don't believe in the actual existence of any of the gods, even my beloved
Kuan Yin. Therefore I don't oppose the gods (it would be a bit like opposing
the Tooth Fairy). What I oppose is deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance.
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb