Birds fly yet still know nothing about aerodynamics. That was the spirit of
my comment. Moorad
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl Maddox" <dpmaddox@arn.net>
To: "Moorad Alexanian" <alexanian@uncwil.edu>; "Jonathan Clarke"
<jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Phil Johnson
> Hello Moorad and group.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Moorad Alexanian" <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> To: "Jonathan Clarke" <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
> Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 7:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Phil Johnson
>
>
> > You will be surprised how many practicing scientists know nothing of
> > metaphysics and, in fact, care about it!
>
> Did you mean to say they do not care about metaphysics or to say that
> despite the fact they know little of it they do care about it as you
stated?
> When I read this it seemed to me you might have made a simple misstatement
> here and the sentence as written did not say what you intended to say.
>
> There is not much need for
> > metaphysics in the experimental sciences. Moorad
>
> I ask the following because I perhaps fall into that group of scientists
who
> don't know much about metaphysics but do care a bit about it.
>
> Do the following beliefs constitute a metaphysical background to the way I
> do my research?
>
> 1) A belief in cause and effect in the macroscopic world (geology done on
a
> scale of things visible with an electron microscope and larger, up to and
> including laboratory chemical analysis of rocks, and field interpretations
> of outcrops based on lab experiments or real time real world measurements
of
> processses and their results).
>
> 2) A belief in the rules of deductive logic applied in cases where I
believe
> or know all the variables have been accounted for and therefore only one
> answer is possible.
>
> 3) A belief in the rules of inductive logic where I can not eliminate all
> the variables or possibilities but can show by that some processes did not
> cause the affect I am seeing and that one or more other could have caused
> it?
>
> It seems to me these are metaphysical assumptions which form the
background
> to my work. But perhaps not; maybe they are something else. I welcome
> comments from any who have an opinion.
>
> Darryl
> >
> > ----- 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 - 11:52:18 EDT