Definitions (Evolution)

by Peter P, Saturday, April 12, 2008, 11:51 (5851 days ago) @ George Jelliss

I'd like to thank David Turell (sorry I misspelt your name) and George Jelliss for their very clear answers to my question about exactly what they believe. I've found their articles and references on scientific subjects really interesting, as are their discussions with whitecraw and dhw. What strikes me now is that both David and George base their beliefs fair and square on science, but they have come up with diametrically opposite conclusions. David thinks there is a supernatural force and George thinks there isnt. So where does that leave the non-scientist? Obviously it boils down to what each of us extrapolates from science and from life, but that also makes science into an unreliable foundation for belief. Its findings in the context of theism v atheism v agnosticism are always going to be open to inter;pretation.. Fair enough to say that theories shouldn't go against current scientific knowledge, e.g. creationism, which seems to be a non-starter, but why do people assume that one theory (supernatural) is wrong and another theory (natural) must be right though its just as unproven and unprovable, and vice versa? Not a plea for either, of course, but clear grounds for open-mindedness and tolerance.