RE: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

On the Q of whether engineering can be used as an analogy of the biological world , yes it can, but as with all analogies there are certain things the same and certain things different.
As to whether the argument from design in engineering is an analogy in the argument from design re the origin of life, no it isn't - it is the same argument because there is no viable alternative to design in both worlds. There is a hope that one day there will be, but it is not based on any evidence only a metaphysical theory about the nature and scope of science.
 
Blessings,
 
Howard.
 
  
------------------------------------------------
FAITH AND THE MODERN WORLD:
www.howardtaylor.net
Howard Taylor,
Work:
Chaplain, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
Tel: 0131 451 4508 Mobile: 0775 969 6811
E-mail: H.G.Taylor@hw.ac.uk
 
Home:
51 The Murrays, Edinburgh, EH17 8UD
Tel: 0131 664 0751
E-mail: HowardTaylor1944@yahoo.co.uk
 
Skype: Howard1944
 
Blog: http://apologetics.blog.co.uk

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Iain Strachan
Sent: Thu 7/19/2007 13:32
To: Peter Loose
Cc: Jack; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

On 7/19/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:

        Hello Jack:
        
        My point is: MN assumes, entirely a priori, that every event in the Natural
        world can be explained in terms of natural causes.

Sorry but that's totally wrong, and is completely contradicted by what George Murphy said which prompted your original post:

George wrote:

After a long lapse, another of the typos you all know & love. Below read "Of course that doesn't mean that what it's able to study exhausts all reality, or that we may NOT encounter observable phenomena that such science can't finally explain."

So there's no assumption that every event can be explained in terms of natural causes. Even Dawkins says there are things science may never explain. All it does is to assume that the only things SCIENCE can explain are those which are explainable in terms of natural causes. MN is a limitiation of science for sure, but it's not a "blind spot".

Once again, I'm afraid, evidence that you don't listen ...

(for personal reasons, having someone listen to you is very important to me ... and I find your propensity not to listen to be very disappointing, especially when it amounts to a direct contradiction of what was said to you.)

Iain
--------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 19 09:13:28 2007