Re: [asa] the Way Science Works

Sure. It depends on the subject under consideration. If I'm doing just straight physics - e.g., considering the implications of a possible photon rest mass for some phenomenon in order to see if improved limits can be put on that parameter - then not much other than physics (including astrophysics) will come into the picture. A lot of what I do is science & theology, which by definition requires one to look both inside & outside science. Some things, like global warming, of course require considerations from the social sciences, economics &c as well as the natural sciences. I'm not sure though that any of that is precisely analogous to the intepretation of a biblical text.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George Murphy ; Iain Strachan
  Cc: drsyme@cablespeed.com ; asa@calvin.edu ; WENDEE HOLTCAMP ; George Cooper
  Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 1:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works

  Interesting discussion, One question for George - do you not apply the following method also to your scientific works: "I.e., we should look at evidence both within & outside scripture - internal & external evidence"? That is, do you advocate looking at evidence both within and outside science when communicating your message to society?

  Arago

  George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
    To be "perfectly clear" - I was not playing the "if we can't believe Genesis (or Jonah, or the floating ax), we how can we believe the resurrection" card. I was distinguishing between the meaning of an event & of a text. The resurrection was simply 1 example.

    But to the question "If Genesis 1 isn't literally true, what about X, Y or Z?" 1st, one ought to read the texts themselves with care and in the larger biblical context & try to determine whether they can consistently be read as historical narratives without special pleading, or if it seems more reasonable (again in context) to read them in another way. 2d, one ought to look at relevant historical & scientific evidence to see if there are reasons pro or con for reading them as accounts of things that really happened. I.e., we should look at evidence both within & outside scripture - internal & external evidence. In the case of Genesis 1, the internal evidence shows that both it & Genesis 2 cannot be read as straight historical-scientific narrative without forcing. The external evidence shows that Genesis 1 is not in accord with modern scientific accounts of the origin of the universe or living things.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  All new Yahoo! Mail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 27 16:26:11 2007