Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:46:26 +0200

Author: Urs Lauterburg

Subject: Re: The argument isn't science vs. religion


Dear debaters about this religion/science mix,

May I suggest to slowly drop this thread because
it surely has the potential to go on forever
without achieving any substantial results. After
all I think that this list's main purpose is to
help each other with demonstrating physics, thus
making our kids understand how nature behaves and
not man. The later is more the domain of
physiology, medicine, psychology and of course
religions. We humans are a part of nature too but
we tend to vastly overestimate our significance
on a broader scale. A bit of humbleness would not
hurt at all.


It is this very approach that drove me out of my
fundamentalist upbringing and culture.

"... to think that we see the world & the
universe as it is ..." What is the alternative?
To think that everything we observe is NOT how it
is? Then why observe at all? Or if we do observe,
accidentally I suppose, why draw any conclusions?
What you advocate is the complete and unequivocal
abandonment of all science.


"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use."
-- Galileo Galilei
Dr. Eric Ayars
Assistant Professor of Physics
California State University, Chico

On Sep 25, 2005, at 4:15 AM, wrote:

Be careful when you give so much credence to the
human mind.   Are we that intelligent in the year
2005, or are we just that vain to think that we
see the world & the univere as it is, and stand
ready to pass judgement on Creationism.
If Creationism is true, then are we not dealing
with a power that transcends are thinking ability
almost infinitely? It is not for us to test this
as a theory of science for vain answers, as much
as it is a vehicle for hope. Give to Ceasar
what is Ceasar's...
Bob Torrelli
Euclid High School

From Sun Sep 25 19:21:37 2005