Re: [asa] Defendscience vs. Collins

For these folks it's axiomatic that science & religion can't be compatible so there's really no possibility even to discuss the question. (For them there's no question!) Their arguments have exactly the same structure as YECs for whom a young earth & rejection of evolution are axiomatic. So it's not at all surprising that both groups attack Collins & anyone who has the audacity to examine their presuppositions.

Shalom,
George

---- George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I was disappointed to receive the following article from Defend Science,
> which attacks Collins and obfuscates the delineation between science and
> religion.
>
> "Francis Collins Appointed as Director of NIH: Science is Attacked Under
> the Banner of "the compatibility of science and religion"
>
> .
>
> "Collins' "harmony" is not good for science.
>
> .
>
> [Collins'] reference to "atheistic materialism" serves to delegitimize core
> principles of the scientific method and to legitimize the introduction of
> god as a hypothesis in science."
>
> .
>
> All this has set Obama and his administration in opposition to consistently
> upholding core principles of science. In the context we find ourselves in
> the aftermath of Bush, Obama has embraced hard-core enemies of science, and
> acted as if there is no problem.
>
> Footnote: .This aspect of "theistic evolution" is a muddle which is in open
> and sharp contradiction to evolutionary theory."
>
> http://www.defendscience.org/ds_commentary16.html
>
>
>
> Once again, atheism via science! Am I wrong?
>
>
>
> "Coope"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 3 12:19:22 2009