Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

Moorad I found one of your pieces from Physics today. and quote it below. I
make some comments prefaced by MR and briefly sum up your position as very
odd and confused and seems to exclude all science which is not experimental
physics as non-science. It is basically what you have put on this list for
years and is simply totally and utterly wrong.

I also read your letter to Pscf on dangerous animals and the fall of
Lucifer, here is your conclusion.

Humans were created in the image of God and animals

are subordinate to them. The physical death of humans

was a consequence of the Fall. Must that not automatically

affect animals? Can superior human beings die whereas

inferior animals not die? Therefore, animals were either

already affected by the Fall of Lucifer or else the Fall of

Man affected animals so that they would always be different

in kind from humans. Hence, it is more logical to

attribute animal pain and death to Satan and not to an

omnipotent God. The millennium reign of the Messiah

will be characterized by the restoration of the harmony in

the whole of creation (Isa. 11:6-9) that was broken not by

the sin of Adam and Eve but by Satan (Rom. 8:18-22).

In closing, Snoke's analysis may be partially successful

in casting doubt that the Fall of Man gave rise to the

viciousness and death in the animal kingdom. However,

Snoke does not even mention the Fall of Lucifer (Isa. 12:14)

and so his inference that such features of the animal world

were created by God leaves much to be desired.

 Here you talk theologically but your hermeneutics are most odd. Is 11 is
not to be taken to about the Millennium. Where is Satan in Ro 8? The fall of
Lucifer in Is 14 not 12 is not recognised by most OT scholars including
evangelicals. You need to actually read what the Bible says and not read
things into the Bible.

In other words both here and elsewhere I find a very confused and inadequate
view on the nature of science. I am amazed that a prof of science could
write such material.

Michael

PS Gregory's comment is irrelevant as few physicists would countenance
Moorad's ideas.

Moorad's letter

Mano Singham's Opinion article "Philosophy Is Essential to the Intelligent
Design Debate" emphasizes both the importance of "the demarcation
problem"--that is, the unambiguous distinction of science from
nonscience--and the nature of "origins science."

MR What is "origins science"?

Science deals with the physical aspect of reality; its subject matter is
data that, in principle, can be collected solely by physical devices. If
physical devices cannot measure something, then that something is not the
subject matter of science. Of course, the whole of reality encompasses more
than the physical.

MR what type of physical devices? Will a human eye count?

Physics is the prototype of experimental science, which yields laws of
nature based on data collected from repeatable experiments.

MR Why are repeatable experiments essential to science? It never has been
and in one fell swoop excludes all descriptive sciences as science.

 In contrast, origins science is more akin to forensic science, because it
deals with unique, nonrepeatable events. Nonetheless, for origins science to
qualify as science, extant evidentiary data must also be collectible by
physical devices.

MR what is origins science again? Is it the same as historical science?
(Having gone into all the stuff on origins and operational science I regard
it as of no consequence.)

Human consciousness and reasoning summarize all physical data into laws and
create the mathematical theories that lead to predictions.

MR Dies science have to have mathematical theories? Useful but not essential

 However, the human element that creates the theories is totally absent from
the laws and theories themselves. Accordingly, human consciousness and
rationality are outside the bounds of science since they cannot be detected
by purely physical devices and can only be "detected" by the self in humans.

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 must be conscious and intelligent to an
infinitely higher degree. I believe this idea is the underlying rationale
for advocates of intelligent design to infer an Intelligent Designer.

Human reasoning cannot avoid the fundamental question of origins, which is
outside the purview of science.

MR what do you mean by origins?

 John Wheeler (Physics Today, May 2002, page 28) said it best: "Philosophy
is too important to leave to the philosophers, and I had better get busy on
the most important question: How come existence?"

Moorad Alexanian
(alexanian@uncw.edu)
University of North Carolina
at Wilmington
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 16 17:25:44 2007