Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science



At 08:36 PM 5/19/2005, Aaron Titus, you wrote:
On May 19, 2005, at 8:37 PM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
Relying on evidence is precisely the opposite of
relying on faith.

John,

While I agree with much of what you said, I do not agree with the
statement above. You are describing what I call "blind faith" and
this indeed relies on no evidence. On the other hand, I know people
of faith, including scientists, that are confident that there is a
basis (evidence) for their faith.

For example, Christian faith is founded on the virgin birth, death,
and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously, a virgin birth and
resurrection from the dead are supernatural events that cannot be
explained scientifically. That's why belief in these things require
"faith" and is not classified as science.

///

Is this acceptable?

Aaron

Not entirely. Virgin birth is not a supernatural event - in that, although
exceeding rare, virgin births of female babies have been substantiated in
the literature. I mention female, because these rare occurrences are
explained scientifically, and the absence of any virgin births of
male children is also explainable scientifically.

So the restricted claim that virgin birth of a male child has taken place
indeed does need a spiritual leap of faith - a miracle, unless or until
some scientist can find a route for a child-bearing woman to transmit the male
genotype, or only slightly more likely, for a woman to spontaneously
develop a female fetus that is largely transformed by adverse hormonal
influence. That would be the confluence of two extremely rare, though
recorded and substantiated factors - which together might well be counted
either all but impossible - or quasi-miraculous.

While it is possible for a scientist to consider these possibilities, a
Christian would likely find the research area repugnant, even anathematic.

Don't you think?



Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l