From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Sun Apr 20 2003 - 11:41:23 EDT
I have often written and stated that science must be defined by its subject matter, which is data collected by purely physical devices. I suppose that may be consistent with MN provided that we realize that MN has implications on part of reality, what I call the physical aspect. However, the most important part of reality relevant to the human character of man resides in the non-physical aspect of reality, viz., human consciousness and rationality, which is beyond the reaches of science. Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Howard J. Van Till [mailto:hvantill@chartermi.net]
Sent: Sat 4/19/2003 10:41 AM
To: George Murphy
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: ID science (subtopic 2)
>From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> John Burgeson wrote:
>>
>> Replying to Howard:
>>
>> >>Here's my preferred meaning: MN is not a statement about the character of
>> >>reality, but a statement about the way science is currently done.>>
>>
>> Agreed. If it WERE a statement about the reality of nature, it would be
>> methodological atheism."
>
> If I may butt in here, it seems to me that the claim that MN is successful does
> have limited implications for the character of reality. It suggests that
> the physical
> world has no "gaps" in the sense that the term is used when referring to a
> "God of the Gaps."
Agreed. MN is a statement about the character of science as currently practiced.
However, the additional observation that MN has a very successful track record has implications regarding the character of reality.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 20 2003 - 11:45:36 EDT