"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> Bert, you wrote:
> > You "fully gifted formation economy" is not very scientific,
> Sorry, Bert, but you are as wrong as wrong can be on this. One of the most
> important assumptions employed in formulating the scientifically successful
> computational model for stellar evolution noted in the example above is none
> other than what I call the "robust formational economy principle."
> To state it even more strongly, the assumption that this principle applies
> to the formational history of things from atoms to star-filled galaxies has
> demonstrated itself to be one of the most fruitful assumptions made in
> cosmology, astronomy, geology, and numerous other physical sciences. The
> vast majority of persons in the life sciences would, I believe, say the same
> for the formational history of life on earth.
> The scientific success of the robust formational economy principle is on
> public display. I don't know how you missed seeing it, Bert.
"Fully gifted formation economy" or something similar should not be
seen as a statement of science but, insofar as it is relevant to science, as a
theological statement to the effect that science should be successful in
understanding the world if it operates without invoking God as an explanation.
Bert's error here is not scientific but theological, the idea that one
ought to be able to find evidence of God by scientific study independenly of
revelation. If this idea is accepted it has the potential to poison both theology
and science. If people wonder why I sometimes speak so negatively, & perhaps even
intemperately, about natural theology, this is the reason.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 16:14:02 EDT