Re: Evolution of proteins in sequence space

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sat Aug 11 2001 - 10:03:45 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Was Copernicus. Sun stood still"

    "Howard J. Van Till" wrote:

    > >From: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
    > >
    >
    > > "Fully gifted formation economy" or something similar should not
    > be
    > > seen as a statement of science but, insofar as it is relevant to science, as a
    > > theological statement to the effect that science should be successful in
    > > understanding the world if it operates without invoking God as an explanation.
    > > Bert's error here is not scientific but theological, the idea that
    > one
    > > ought to be able to find evidence of God by scientific study independenly of
    > > revelation. If this idea is accepted it has the potential to poison both
    > theology
    > > and science. If people wonder why I sometimes speak so negatively, & perhaps
    > even
    > > intemperately, about natural theology, this is the reason.
    >
    > Actually I have stated the RFE Principle in two ways -- one version is
    > limited to the concerns of science per se, and the other includes some
    > concerns of theology.
    >
    > 1. (limited to science) The formational economy of the universe is
    > sufficiently robust to account for the formation of every type of physical
    > structure (atom, planet star, galaxy) and every type of life form that has
    > ever appeared in the course of time.
    >
    > 2. (theologically supplemented version) As a manifestation of its Creator's
    > creativity and generosity, the formational economy of the Creation is
    > sufficiently robust to make possible -- without any need for occcasional
    > episodes of form-conferring, supernatural interventions -- the formation of
    > every type of physical structure (atom, planet star, galaxy) and every type
    > of life form that has ever appeared in the course of time.
    >
    > It is form #1, limited to scientific concerns, that I had in mind in the
    > previous post to Bert.

            The distinction is useful. Note that I didn't say that RFEP was not
    relevant for science. But even in form #1, it is not a statement of science itself
    but a meta-scientific claim.

    Shalom,

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Dialogue"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 11 2001 - 10:04:44 EDT