Guy Blanchet wrote:
> Mr. Miller,
> The goal of science should be to say everything it can about natural
> processes. And what it can say may fall into two categories: a pure physical
> description of a process, and, the reality behind the process (its deep
> meaning). The first talks about Nature, the second attemps to say what Nature
The first is science, the second is metascience (updating the older
terminology of physics & metaphysics.) Both are legitimate activities (_pace_
the positivists) but they aren't the same.
> In developping a theory, one usually establishes a model, a general concept,
> which is then translated into mathematical relationships.
In modern physics at least, the mathematical relationships often _are_
> Limiting the model
> to be observable, i.e. non-supernatural, is a serious and needless
> restriction. No one, worthy of being called a scientist, should be
> disturbed by a model invoquing the supernatural as long as it leads to useful
> Those who insist that this is not acceptable practice,
> especially when the supernatural is the Biblical God, are promoting a
> non-scientific personal agenda.
1) They may also - as is the case with me and with many Christian
theologians - be basing their arguments upon theological understandings of the
ways in which God acts in the world. & whether those are right or wrong, they
have to be investigated theologically.
Moreover, unless there is some theological understanding of the
"God" who is invoked by a theory, it of course can predict anything at all. Of
course anything can be "explained" in terms of the actions of a being with
unlimited power, which is what the word "God" implies in common parlance.
2) "No one, worthy of being called a scientist" will regard putatively
scientific models which invoke "God" as being any more than a stop-gap. As soon
as it's said that "God does X", one can ask "_How_ does God do X?"
(N.B. I said that such _models_ are stop-gaps, not that their "God" is.
But it's a short distance from that to "God as a stop gap" = "God of the gaps.")
> I have a copy of a paper entitled "THE CORRECT APPROACH TO SCIENTIFIC
> THEORIES", Apostolos Ch. Frangos, Volume 28, June 1991, CREATION RESEARCH
> SOCIETY QUARTERLY. This paper looks at the problem of intermixing
> philosophical and metaphysical doctrines with empirical science. It poses
> the problem of correctly identifying the difference between what is
> scientific and what is not. The author holds that If the ensuing theory or
> model is subject to a scientific test, then it is scientific.
> Of course, the above becomes very academic unless it may be demonstrated that
> a model invoquing the supernatural may be successfully constructed. This is
> a subject that has got me going for the past 13 years. If you are interested
> in knowing more, I'll be pleased to pass on what I've found out. (Note: In
> my case, by supernatural, I mean the Biblical variety.)
The biblical variety of what? The Bible doesn't use the categories
of "natural" and "supernatural."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 07:58:30 EDT