George Murphy wrote:
> >>Allen & Diane Roy wrote:
>
> >>I was surprised when Bill supplied the correct answer -- Nothing is
> >>missing because it is complete as I wrote it. Wayne and Stein gave
> >>the typical answer and Glenn came up with something original: commas.
> >>
> >>....The question leads
> >>one to assume that something is missing when there is nothing missing
> >>at all. It prejudices or biases any answer developed. The problem is
> >>not the data but the question. The proper question should be: "What
> >>do you see?" When we ask proper questions, we are able to push ahead
> >>with better understanding. This is science, is it not..to see what is
> >>there?
>
> > When Uranus was found not to follow its predicted orbit, some astronomers
> >decided that something was "missing" and used Newton's laws to discover Neptune.
> >When there were gaps in Mendeleev's periodic table some chemists searched and found the
> >"missing" elements. When there seemed to be energy "missing" in beta decay physicists
> >theorized the neutrino & found it after a 25 year search.
>
> > The task of science is not just to record & organize observational data but to
> >discover patterns - i.e., rational laws. The test of those laws is not just that they
> >explain what we already know but that they are able to predict novel facts. Simply
> >discerning some regularity is not enough: The anomalous motion of Uranus could have
> >been "explained" by making a slight change of the exponent in Newton's inverse square
> >law, but nobody with any deep sense for pattern would have been satisfied with that.
> > But don't we have to just take what God has defined for us? Well, of course we
> >have to take the universe we inhabit as a basic datum, & our theories ultimately have to
> >correspond to it. But if the claim is that we have to use Genesis to tell us the age of
> >the earth or something of that sort, the answer is "No". That negative answer is
> >supported
> > a) theologically, by the fact that God's action in the world is hidden,
> > corresponding to the divine self-limitation of Phil.2:5-11, and
> > b) empirically, by the fact that science _sans_ Bible works.
>
> > Shalom,
> > George
George responded well, for "seeing what is there" to discern God's invisible qualities (IAW
Rom. 1:20) can indeed involve an in-depth examination (which is what science is about).
Restating what's been said here and elsewhere in different words, we glorify God by
using the intellect and abilities He has given us when we do the jobs he's lead us to do in
a dedicated, whole-hearted manner. For those in science, that means when we SHOULD
seek to understand more of the universe He's placed us in and tell others what we've
learned.
The more I understand of the order of the universe He's made, the more I glorify Him. I'm
constantly awed by the intricacy and detail of His creation, and this serves to me, as to
probably many who read this list, a constant reminder that if He was so attentive to the
details of the inanimate in His acts of creation, how much more is He attentive to those
whom He has created and bear His image--though stained by sin?
God gave us brains to think with. He placed within us desires to understand more of His
creation. He's lead us to study and investigate various aspects (scientific disciplines) of
His creation. We are therefore compelled to do so. For in not doing this, we ignore His
purpose for us, disobeying His leading and not using the intellects and gifts He's given us.
As to the nature of "proper questions" which Allen was directing us to... If I seek to do
what
discussed above, am I not asking the proper questions? I want to learn more of His creation
that (1) I may glorify Him more and (2) I may tell others of His wonderful works. If others
have less noble goals, that is an issue for which they must give an answer to God.
Howard Meyer
psiigii@home.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 26 2000 - 14:29:42 EST