tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post4063704511404156133..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: CosmosDouglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-693026798206239702010-12-12T18:17:37.267-07:002010-12-12T18:17:37.267-07:00While the statement Sagan begins his book with is ...While the statement Sagan begins his book with is indeed representative of the naturalistic worldview, it should be noted that it seems to be said in a cheeky manner, mocking a religious text. Is this only obvious to me? Sagan is obviously enamored with the universe, and it is truly something to be in awe of.<br /><br />To say that Sagan misunderstood science without any further backing is quite a leap, considering his standing in the scientific community. It would be easier to assume that you, sir, misunderstand science. Science corrects itself when in error, yet religion never does.<br /><br />Your use of the word 'unguided' is true only in the sense it's not guided by an unseen Creator. However, it does have a goal and purpose, as most evolutionary biologists assert. <br /><br />Because Math has axioms, it does not follow presuppositionally that we can make them up willy-nilly for our own belief systems. Just because it's possible doesn't follow that it's probable. That's not how it works, and I believe you know this.Jeffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06727787889466667939noreply@blogger.com