Hi Moorad
I agree with your summary of the attitude of many. However, ignorance (willful
or otherwise) of metaphysics does not make it unimportant. The principles of
aerodynamics are what enable birds to fly though they know and understand it
not. Similarly the practice of science is consistent with some world views but
not others. furthermore almost all popularisers of science (Dawkins, Davies,
Sagan, Hawkins, Gould, Conway-Morris, and Stannard) indulge in metaphysics,
because it is the metaphysical implications and framework that provide meaning
to the science.
GB
Jon
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> 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 - 18:44:59 EDT