"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
> George by now I think you should know the difference between theories or
> explanations of origins and theories or explanations of physical systems that
> are amenable to experimentation. Moorad
I know the distinction between "origins science" and "operations science"
which is beloved of creationists & IDers but it's spurious. As far as I know it
is not made by scientists in planning & carrying out research or by philosophers
Origins of what? Is there a distinction in embryology between "origins
embryology" and "operations embryology"? Is study of the initial stages of
stellar evolution "a theory of origins" or an "explanation of a physical system
that is amenable to experimentation"? The answer is "both".
Of course science can't answer the question of ultimate origins - why does
a universe exist? But questions of penultimate origins are fair game, & science
has done a decent job of dealing with them, both theoretically & observationally.
Big bang theories have consequences which can be confronted with observations &
fare pretty well in that confrontation.
The distinction you're traying to make is just a way of setting out a God
of the gaps view. & in spite of the dubious article defending such views in the
recent PSCF, such views have no scientific or theological merit.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 11 2001 - 20:09:52 EDT