Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!ihnp4!we13!otuxa!ll1!sb1!burl!duke!unc!bch From: bch@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: God and Science Message-ID: <5588@unc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Jul-83 14:09:10 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.5588 Posted: Wed Jul 20 14:09:10 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jul-83 04:02:02 EDT References: <1744@mcnc.UUCP> hou5d.576 Lines: 38 Did Ken Cochran and I read the same article by Eddie Stokes? Nowhere in the article does Eddie say that the theory of evolution is PROVEN, nor does he say that this proves there is no god. In fact, to quote directly, Eddie says: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I believe that the scientific method is a gift from God to man in order that man better understand God's universe. I also believe that true religion MUST conform to scientific theories. In other words, what we know about science is a pitifully small subset of "true religion". In order to understand science fully, we must also understand God fully, and vice-versa. It is, of course, impossible for us to fully understand anything, since our minds have limited capacity. Thus, it would be to our benefit if we started from what we know (computers and evolution included) and attempted to increase the knowledge of the human race, rather than debating on whether or not God created the universe in 7 days flat, since the probability of this occurance is exceedingly small." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Without accusing Ken of maliciousness and deliberately misrepresenting Eddie's argument to suit his own purposes, I cannot see how he derived: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Surely anyone can see the falacies in this argument. Eddie Stokes's argument boils down to: We have computers, cars etc . developed through science.... Therefore the THEORY of evolution is proved ..... Therfore there is no God !" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- from Eddie's text. My inference, I guess, is that Ken thinks that anyone who believes in evolution (possibly anyone who isn't a funda- mentalist) must be an atheist. This wouldn't suprise me given some of the other misapprehensions running around on this newsgroup. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill