From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 09:27:05 EDT
All the philosophical assumptions that one must make to do unadulterated science are quite consistent with a designed physical universe. Of course, human consciousness and rationality, which are needed to do science but are not part of the physical laws used to describe the physical universe, are not accessible to the physical devices used to collected scientific data.
Unraveling the mysteries of nature requires conscious, intelligent beings. But no humanly conceived theory of nature, however complete, can ever encompass all that exists or the creation process that brought everything into being. This ontological problem is best answered by supposing the existence of a Creator, which unifies in humans the physical and non-physical/spiritual aspects of reality.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: brian harper [mailto:harper.10@osu.edu]
Sent: Tue 8/5/2003 12:15 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Cc:
Subject: Re: One Simple Question
At 05:36 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
>In post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0650.html Glen responded to
>my question
>
> >Also, my point was that if we do live in an
> >ID universe, which you admit to be possible,
> >then it would seem that ID science would be
> >*necessary* to correctly understand our
> >universe. Is this correct?
This doesn't seem correct to me for several
reasons. First, it would depend on the nature
and purpose of the designer. Second we can
look at past experience. IDers claim fine-tuning
as an example of ID. What role did ID science
play in the identification of fine-tuning?
Brian Harper
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 09:27:11 EDT