Re: Yes Science Needs God

From: Morituri-Max (newage_at_sendarico.net)
Date: 08/28/04 

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:46:28 GMT

Phil wrote:
> Science may or may not require its creator, any more than a clay pot
> requires the person that made it. But science definitely takes on greater
> meaning when God is given due credit for his handiwork. To think that there
> is a Person of such great enginuity and genious to be able to design this
> universe and everthing in it. Who has a mind that understands physics, maths
> and biology to such a magnitude an depth that makes the greatest scientists
> in this world appear foolish. Science is far more interesting and amazing
> when I know that this is the work of my Creator, the Master. Who gave all
> this creation for his sons and daughters to search out and enjoy.

As soon as "God" steps forward and lets everyone know what all his works are,
then we will give him credit.. We can't assign credit to someone elses
"handiwork" any more than Bill Gates can give credit for the design and creation
of the proton to microsoft.

When I buy anything from Wal Mart that has "Made in Heaven" on it, then I'll
consider giving credit to God. And the trademark has to have angels sing when I
touch it.

As for ingenuity and genius, care to explain why babies die from SIDS or why the
human eye is such a joke compared to the eye of, say, a squid? One wonders why
a god who creates us in his image gives us such substandard parts. "He"
"created" us naked and yet we freeze or burn to death outside a very narrow
temperature range. Such a master of design felt he had to "create" the whole
gamut of organisms from germs to viruses to multi celled organisms when he could
have made us all like solid barbie dolls and had everything work just as good.
No germs would be needed then, nor would other small pests like ticks, fleas or
mosquitoes.

It never ceases to amaze me that a creator who can design the ebola virus can't
even get the human eye right. Wow.

> when I know that this is the work of my Creator, the Master. Who gave all
> this creation for his sons and daughters to search out and enjoy.

And who also tossed man out of the garden of eden for eating the wrong food
group, stayed pissed at us for all this time, then somehow felt he had to send
his "son" down to be killed by the people he was pissed at so he could forgive
them. Hmmm, if god does exist he sure has a nietzchien way of looking at
things.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: views of academic scientists
    ... knows what 'acts of god' are. ... forces of nature are. ... why are you talking insurance when you are trying to talk science? ... the hands of their creator. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Suzanne the Bible and Science
    ... designed to prevent trichinosis and cysticercosis. ... the credit goes to God who is quoted as having given the dietary ... contained truths only now apparent to science and that therefore we ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: views of academic scientists
    ... act of God and what isn't. ... science has no choice in the matter. ... Forces of nature were not discovered by science. ... does not mean a creator does not exist. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Yes Science Needs God
    ... But science definitely takes on greater ... > meaning when God is given due credit for his handiwork. ... > when I know that this is the work of my Creator, ... As soon as "God" steps forward and lets everyone know what all his works are, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: 2 questions about Inteligent Design vs Evolution
    ... valid, it couldn't jump to a conclusion (i.e., a creator). ... succeeded in having a worldview free of any conception of God. ... benevolent God as defined by Christianity. ... proven false by science. ...
    (talk.origins)