Re: Materialistic Science

Moorad Alexanian (
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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Behnke, James <>
To: 'evolution' <>; 'ASA reflector' <>
Cc: Wilbur, Frank <>; Olsen, Larry
<>; Baldridge, Bobby <>
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
>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
>just as well as a believer? (If so, some form of naturalism is part of
>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
>study of evolution more naturalistic or materialistic than the study of
>atoms, molecules and forces?
>Jim Behnke