You will be surprised how many practicing scientists know nothing of
metaphysics and, in fact, care about it! There is not much need for
metaphysics in the experimental sciences. Moorad
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Clarke" <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: Phil Johnson
> Hi Moorad
>
> All sciences raise questions that interact with the scientists
metaphysics, not
> just the historical sciences. The history of Galileo, Newton, cosmology,
and
> quantum theory all show this.
>
> GB
>
> Jon
>
> "Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
>
> > X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002795
> >
> > One is not seeking gaps. A scientist does not cease to be human, with
all the
> > headaches that go with that, when doing science. Questions outside
science
> > whirl in one's head and such are the questions that are only answered
within
> > the realm that lies beyond the physical. It is the questions raised in
> > historical biology that are by nature in the areas that question our
> > philosophical assumptions and overlap with theological issues. Moorad
> >
> > >===== Original Message From Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
=====
> > >Moorad
> > >
> > >But why only seek these gaps in biology? Why not in cosmology also?
The
> > >supporters of ID have never come clean or even answered this question.
In
> > the end
> > >it is an argument based on ignorance. We can't explain it, so it must
be
> > God.
> > >This is not the God of the Bible, the God who makes the winds blow, the
sun
> > shine,
> > >and the rain fall. Why don't we seek gaps in meteorology and astronomy
so as
> > to
> > >lead people to God?
> > >
> > >GB
> > >
> > >Jon
> > >
> > >"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
> > >
> > >> X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002795
> > >> Sender: asa-owner@udomo5.calvin.edu
> > >> Precedence: bulk
> > >>
> > >> It is not a proof that will force people into belief but a dead end
to
> > >> scientific pursuit. It is not inconceivable that there can be a proof
that
> > >> essentially invalidates the claims of evolutionary theory. Isn't that
in
> > >> essence what the ID movement is all about? I am toying with the
notion
> > that a
> > >> genuine scientific search for answers becomes so fruitless that it
leads to
> > >> belief. Moorad
> > >>
> > >> >===== Original Message From "D. F. Siemens, Jr."
<dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> > =====
> > >> >On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:46:21 -0400 "Moorad
> > >> >Alexanian<alexanian@uncwil.edu>" <alexanian@uncwil.edu> writes:
> > >> >> As I wrote you can do some intellectual gymnastics and reconcile
your
> > >> >> theology
> > >> >> with evolutionary theory. I am not ready to do that yet. However,
> > >> >> within the
> > >> >> context of a scientific theory, it is hard to reach such a
position
> > >> >> that those
> > >> >> proposing it will throw up their hands and say there must be a
God.
> > >> >> One must
> > >> >> have a sort of Godel type theorem negating the possibility of
> > >> >> evolutionary
> > >> >> theory in order for all scientists to discard it and become
> > >> >> believers. I do
> > >> >> not think that is possible for otherwise there is no need of faith
> > >> >> which goes
> > >> >> contrary to the nature of God. Moorad
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >Moorad,
> > >> >I'm having trouble with this. How can there be a proof that will
coerce
> > >> >belief in God? Again, you confuse a scientific theory with denying
the
> > >> >existence of the deity, when the problem is with the atheism,
materialism
> > >> >and scientism which are not part of science at all.
> > >> >Dave
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 02 2001 - 08:49:58 EDT