I would agree it is a matter of good philosophy but not a matter of good
theology. The language in systematics is the same as that in other
sciences, that is, you always say "support", "suggest", "corroborate", or
"not supported".
Thanks,
Jeff
>From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
>To: "Behnke, James" <james.behnke@asbury.edu>, "'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: Re: Materialistic Science
>Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 12:00:36 -0400
>
>Good theology, or better good philosophy, is necessary in order to know
>what
>science is and what it is not. We have to be careful that our assumptions
>are not identical to our conclusions. One can readily do that in
>evolutionary theory where the assumption of common ancestry is used as a
>working hypothesis but is often stated as a historical fact.
>
>Moorad
>
>-----Original Message-----
>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>
>Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 11:45 AM
>Subject: Materialistic Science
>
>
> >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
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com