What would be the advantage in being a believer since objectivity is the
goal of observation and inference.
Also, what college are you associated with.
Thanks,
Jeff
>From: "Behnke, James" <james.behnke@asbury.edu>
>To: "'evolution'" <evolution@calvin.edu>, "'ASA reflector'"
><asa@calvin.edu>
>CC: "Wilbur, Frank" <frank.wilbur@asbury.edu>, "Olsen, Larry"
><lolsen@asbury.edu>, "Baldridge, Bobby" <bobby.baldridge@asbury.edu>
>Subject: Materialistic Science
>Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:47:55 -0400
>
>One of our English faculty is using Johnson's paperback on Defeating
>Darwinism in Freshman Composition, so some of us scientists are discussing
>it.
>
>We (the academic community) seem to have decided that good theology is not
>required to do good science. An unbeliever can do it just as well as a
>believer. See Ted Davis' book on Robert Boyle.
>
>Is good theology necessary to do good science? Can an unbeliever do
>science
>just as well as a believer? (If so, some form of naturalism is part of
>science.)
>
>Johnson and Moreland have pushing the view that says "No" to the above
>questions. My view is that J and M are wrong. What do others feel? Is
>the
>study of evolution more naturalistic or materialistic than the study of
>atoms, molecules and forces?
>
>Jim Behnke
************************************************************
Jeffrey A. Stratford
Department of Zoology and Wildlife Sciences
Funchess Hall
Auburn, AL 36849
USA
************************************************************
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com