Rocket Surgery (love your name), I also see God as the Ultimate Scientist, and I love the orchid illustration.
As far as who the Overseer is that Angela speaks of, well, that is completely out of the realm of science, I believe. Science and religion share the problem of infinite regress
, as I said at the beginning of the thread, but it bears repeating, I think: Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| By Angela, Today 03:05 PM |
If the argument is, "the Overseer is transcendent of time, has always been and always will be" then why would it not possible for the answer to that be that "the Universal Stew is transcendent of time, has always been and always will be"?
It certainly is a possiblity, and there are Christian believers as well as atheists, pantheists and panentheists who believe that.
I, for example, am a Christian panen
theist who considers that a possiblity
Hannes Alvén was a Nobel Prize-winning atheist example. And let's not leave out Fred Hoyle.
Note that the Big Bang is a theory, and that it has its detractors, even now.
But it's not in the purview of science to make absolute pronouncements about cosmology just yet, it seems to me. Strong theories, yes. Absolute pronouncements, no.
I think that in addition to the problem of the fall of genetic determinism (one gene->one protein) at the turn of the last century, science is also being squeezed
between the incredible complexity
of the universe and the time available
for this complexity to have arisen via natural selection and mutation.
This is not trivial matter, and becomes more problematic the more scientists learn about biology.
Some sort of fairly strong anthropic principle
is going to have to be adopted, and sooner rather than later, I rather imagine. Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stuart Kaufman is interesting in this respect--more later about him.