RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

Historical sciences are a synthetic kind of knowledge that studies history with the tools and results of the experimental sciences. If a historical scientist does science, it is because that person is acting as a scientist doing scientific experiments and not as a historian. That places forensic science squarely in the category of a historical science. This is so obvious that I cannot understand those who refuse such characterization of what historical scientists actually do.

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Michael Roberts
Sent: Fri 8/31/2007 6:29 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

I would not have thought Pim a gadfly but rather a peppery moth (piston
petularia) :)

However Moorad before you criticise Pim you should put your own house in
order and stop rubbishing historical science as you always do, by dismissing
it as forensic science. Here you are a gadfly par excellence. You have a
peculiar and limited view of science and deny that half of science i.e.
historical science can actually be science. You have never given any
arguments why this is so, but when I look at stuff on your EHRC I realise
just how poor these are and are basically thorns and thistles, with a whole
series of misrepresentations (see Colin Mitchell's work for a start - his
geology is grossly inaccurate as one may find in the book The Case for
Creationism, from which several chapters are on the EHRC site) which bring
our Lord into disrepute. When fellow Christians do what is wrong they need
correcting, but it seems we are not supposed to

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Gregory Arago" <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Cc: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

> Those who criticize the attempts of Christians to integrate the Christian
> faith with the findings of experimental sciences ought to play a positive
> role by putting forward their own efforts in this regard. Gadflies ought
> to direct their bites at the clear enemies of Christ rather than those who
> love Him. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered
> from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" Matt. 7:16.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Gregory Arago
> Sent: Thu 8/30/2007 8:47 AM
> To: 'PvM'
> Cc: 'AmericanScientificAffiliation'
> Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>
>
> Do you actually visit such places on the internet that put out
> anti-theistic rhetoric regularly PIM? You still haven't taken up my
> challenge to give voice to Christian views of altruism instead of those of
> sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists. One might wonder: why not?
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:09 AM
> To: David Campbell
> Cc: John Walley; AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>
> See Behe flail
> http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/see_behe_flail.php
>
> A wonderful example of the extremes to which ID proponents have to go
> to deny the evidence. As PZ explores
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/michael_behe_demonstrates_his.php
>
> Want to see some real science? An article in the NY Times
> summarizes research in the evolution of glucocorticoid receptors. This
> is really cool stuff, where the investigators do step-by-step changes
> in the protein structure to determine the likely sequence of
> evolutionary changes - it really does describe the path of
> evolutionary history for a set of proteins at the level of amino
> acids.
>
> Now, if you want to see some junk science, Michael Behe flounders
> disgracefully to try and dismiss the work. This is a genuine
> embarrassment: Behe is a biochemist who has done legitimate work in
> protein structure, and this kind of research ought to be right up his
> alley, where he could make an informed analysis. Instead, it's ugly
> and sad. A sensible creationist would simply admit that sure, here's
> one case of the evolution of a receptor that is solidly made, but hey,
> look, over there - here are all these other proteins that haven't been
> analyzed to the same level of detail. It would be pathetic and
> avoiding the issue, but Behe has a different and worse strategy: he
> denies the work shows anything at all.
>
> Shocking
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo!
> Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 1 11:56:02 2007