On 7/16/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> If this is true, then it is up to Christian
> philosophers of this age to correct the belief in MN
> so that it is not exclusively biased against
> non-natural sciences. Ted's history lesson should be
> taken as an indicator that forward-looking thinkers
> can embrace. We need not remain stuck in this
> dichotomous thinking, which carries on the tradition
> of Descartes, Darwin, Gould and Dennett
> unsatisfactorily. We need not oppose natural and
> supernatural so forcefully, so exclusive of all other
> contrasts to what is considered 'natural' by natural
> scientists.
Lot's of words, little argument. How is MN biased against non natural
sciences? And what are non-natural sciences? I understand that iD has
attempted to redefine intelligence as a form of 'non-natural' but I
fail to see how this argument can be reasonably defended.
> So I stick by what I said earlier in this thread:
> "MN/PN continues to be a philosophical red herring, a
> transition dichotomy on the way to better
> understanding that eclipses the dichotomy altogether."
> This speaks to the idea of 'science's blind spot'
> while also respectfully leaving space for scientific
> discovery and innovation that focuses on the natural
> world.
What 'blind spot' is this? What space is left for scientific discovery
and innovation? Empty words..
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 16 18:26:42 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 16 2007 - 18:26:43 EDT