"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
> The definition of science I am advocating is probably the same that others
> have done expect I use direct language and not jargons. Science has to do with
> physical explanations and theories, not theological.
Precisely - which is why the God of the gaps (by whatever name) is bad
science. & as I pointed out, that is just what your distinction between theories
about origins and other science amounts to.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
> If such is the case, then
> it is clear that the data for science must be determined by physical entities
> alone. The physical determines the physical, so to speak. Physical theories
> have nothing to do with people, although it is people that work them out.
> Otherwise, it would be subjective. Aliens will get the same science as we do!
> But man, as spiritual beings, can detect not only the physical but also the
> spiritual. Moorad
>
> >===== Original Message From Joel Cannon <jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu> =====
> >> From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> >>
> >> I know something about physics and something about Scripture. How the whole
> >> thing comes together, I really do not know. On the basis of this, I do not
> >> know how you can pigeonhole me. For your info, I am enclosing something I
> >> have posted elsewhere. Moorad
> >
> >The enclosure is revealing, but it avoids what I suspect are
> >the real issues, such as what theological lenses inform what you see
> >and what you want to define as science. I state once again that a
> >theological viewpoint does not necessarily discredit a position. We
> >hold theological truth to be valid. But it raises the question of the
> >warrant for a particular theological position. What something do you
> >know about scripture that would inform this discussion?
> >
> >Are there other people who define science like you do. What would the
> >warrant be for this?
> >
> >If people can recognize that a human wrote the physics articles I
> >published, have I failed to publish a true science?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I have often stated what I consider science to be. The objectivity of
> >> science demands that data be collected by non-human devices, even if one
> >> brings in quantum mechanics. It goes without saying the humans are needed
> to
> >> set up the experiments, etc. Now with that source of data, humans device
> >> theories and publish them in scientific journals. The published work is in
> >> abstract mathematics and from that one cannot determine that humans
> actually
> >> wrote the article. That is what science is. I find it hard to deduce from
> >> such scientific articles the existence of man. That is why I say that the
> >> question of origins is not a scientific question. Therefore, if complexity
> >> is one of the items that appears in such articles, it is still scientific
> >> and cannot be used to deduce an intelligent designer, just as one cannot
> >> deduce that humans wrote the article. The key is that we know that
> >> intelligent humans did write the articles. In the same fashion, we can
> infer
> >> an intelligent designer from science but via the intelligence of humans and
> >> not the complexity in nature. Moorad
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Joel Cannon" <jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu>
> >> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 12:38 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Challenge (fwd)...Theological assumption and scientific
> desires
> >>
> >>
> >> > > > Moorad writes:
> >> > >
> >> > > You can use the word evolution in everything you say and do. The
> >> challenge
> >> > > is to relate the evolutionary theorIES to the practical sciences and I
> >> am
> >> > > sure that there is none! Moorad
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I start these observations by saying that I am sorry the ID people
> >> > have either left the list or are content to let Moorad do the heavy
> >> > lifting for their position. He is at the moment boldly taking on all
> >> > comers without much encouragement from his peers.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Having said that I would like to assert that, in my opinion, two
> >> > important underlying convictions are not on the table in Moorad's
> >> > discussion (and in ID discussions), and just as discussions from all
> >> > levels from individuals (e.g. in marriage) to countries are hindered
> >> > when the all the real issues are not on the table this hinders our
> >> > discussion.
> >> >
> >> > My impression is that the lens through which Moorad and ID view the
> world
> >> > of evolutionary biology consists of two foundational convictions.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 1. The theological conviction that evolution is incompatible with
> >> > Christianity (in particular with the idea that humans are created
> >> > in the image of God).
> >> >
> >> > 2. An accompanying conviction that evolutionary theory must be
> >> > deprived of any association with the word "science" because
> >> > science is equated with truth in our culture (and evolution is not
> >> > true).
> >> >
> >> > These convictions do not imply that Moorad and the intelligent design
> >> > people are necessarily wrong, but it does strongly suggest that
> >> > physical evidence is secondary, and that the discussion needs to be
> >> > broadened to include the real issues. Can we support or discount these
> >> > convictions theologically?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----
> >> > Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
> >> > Physics Department |
> >> > Washington and Jefferson College |
> >> > Washington, PA 15301 |
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
> >Physics Department |
> >Washington and Jefferson College |
> >Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 16:07:51 EDT