Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Sunday, November 9 1997 Volume 01 : Number 719
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 00:15:11 -0500
From: Brian D Harper <harper.10@osu.edu>
Subject: Re: Impact no. 293
At 05:39 AM 11/7/97 -0700, Allan Roy wrote:
>This ought to stir up some responses. :-)
>
>Allen Roy
>
>IMPACT No. 293 <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-293.htm>
>
>
> SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM AS SCIENCE
>
> by Larry Vardiman *
>
> Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021
> Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469
>
> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation" November 1997
> Copyright =A9 1997 All Rights Reserved
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
>
> The Current Attitude
>
>The current attitude in the academic and scientific community is that
>science and religion are completely incompatible. It is believed that
>science is a system of knowledge based on experimentation, observation, and
>logic. Religion, on the other hand, is viewed as a system of faith based on
>myth, culture, and self-delusion. A researcher is allowed to have a=
personal
>religion, but he should never permit it to affect his work or he will no
>longer be considered a legitimate scientist.
>
>In a recent court case involving the right of the ICR Graduate School to
>teach science from a Biblical perspective, a physics professor from
>California State University at Long Beach testified that if Isaac Newton
>were on the school's faculty today, his position on creation would prevent
>the school from being recognized by the State of California. This professor
>objected to statements such as the following in Mathematica Principia
>where Newton said:
>
> This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could
> only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and
> powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of
> the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He
> is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.1
>
>When questioned how this professor could make such a statement about one=
who
>is recognized as possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, he replied
>that if Isaac Newton persisted in maintaining a creationist position as he
>did in Mathematica Principia, knowing what we know today, he would not be
>recognized as a credible scientist.2
>
Well, I'm afraid I cannot resist saying something in
defense of Sir Isaac ;-).
There is no doubt that Newton was a creationist.
Whether he would be so today is another question
entirely of course. There is also no doubt that
Newton was everything that the ICR is not and=20
using him as some sort of ICR supporter is
really repulsive.=20
Anyway, Newton considered his scientific work to
represent a much clearer argument for design than
the biological contrivances of the Paley type
argument and he encouraged the use of his work
in apologetics. In a letter to Richard Bentley
Newton wrote:
#"When I wrote my treatise upon our Systeme I had
# an eye upon such Principles as might work with
# considering men for the belief of a Deity and
# nothing can rejoice me more than to find it=20
# useful for that purpose"-- Newton
But unlike the approach being suggested by Vardiman,
Newton kept theological and metaphysical beliefs
separate from the science, for example he wrote:
#"Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly
# according to certain laws; but whether this agent
# be material or immaterial I have left to the
# consideration of my readers" -- Newton
Also, the quote of Newton given by Vardiman above
comes in a very short section at the very end of
the <Principia>. A couple of pages over from the
quote given we find (actually its the next to last
paragraph of Principia):
#"But hitherto I have not been able to discover the
# cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena,
# and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not
# deduced from the phenomena is to be called an
# hypothesis; and hypothesis, whether metaphysical
# or physical, whether of occult qualities or=20
# mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
# In this philosophy particular propositions are=20
# inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered=20
# general by induction." -- Newton
Now, I can well imagine that modern philosophers of
science might find this statement rather naive :-),
<"What does philosophy got to do with measuring
<anything?" -- Galileo
but the point I'm making here is that Newton would
have been very much opposed to the approach to=20
"science" that is suggested by Vardiman in this=20
article.
[...]
Brian Harper =20
Associate Professor =20
Applied Mechanics =20
The Ohio State University =20
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #719
******************************