Re: Challenge (fwd)...Theological assumption and scientific desires

From: Moorad Alexanian (
Date: Fri Oct 12 2001 - 12:48:33 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: Evolution predictions and medicine: (was re: Challenge)"

    I know something about physics and something about Scripture. How the whole
    thing comes together, I really do not know. On the basis of this, I do not
    know how you can pigeonhole me. For your info, I am enclosing something I
    have posted elsewhere. Moorad

    I have often stated what I consider science to be. The objectivity of
    science demands that data be collected by non-human devices, even if one
    brings in quantum mechanics. It goes without saying the humans are needed to
    set up the experiments, etc. Now with that source of data, humans device
    theories and publish them in scientific journals. The published work is in
    abstract mathematics and from that one cannot determine that humans actually
    wrote the article. That is what science is. I find it hard to deduce from
    such scientific articles the existence of man. That is why I say that the
    question of origins is not a scientific question. Therefore, if complexity
    is one of the items that appears in such articles, it is still scientific
    and cannot be used to deduce an intelligent designer, just as one cannot
    deduce that humans wrote the article. The key is that we know that
    intelligent humans did write the articles. In the same fashion, we can infer
    an intelligent designer from science but via the intelligence of humans and
    not the complexity in nature. Moorad

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Joel Cannon" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 12:38 PM
    Subject: Re: Challenge (fwd)...Theological assumption and scientific desires

    > > > Moorad writes:
    > >
    > > You can use the word evolution in everything you say and do. The
    > > is to relate the evolutionary theorIES to the practical sciences and I
    > > sure that there is none! Moorad
    > >
    > I start these observations by saying that I am sorry the ID people
    > have either left the list or are content to let Moorad do the heavy
    > lifting for their position. He is at the moment boldly taking on all
    > comers without much encouragement from his peers.
    > Having said that I would like to assert that, in my opinion, two
    > important underlying convictions are not on the table in Moorad's
    > discussion (and in ID discussions), and just as discussions from all
    > levels from individuals (e.g. in marriage) to countries are hindered
    > when the all the real issues are not on the table this hinders our
    > discussion.
    > My impression is that the lens through which Moorad and ID view the world
    > of evolutionary biology consists of two foundational convictions.
    > 1. The theological conviction that evolution is incompatible with
    > Christianity (in particular with the idea that humans are created
    > in the image of God).
    > 2. An accompanying conviction that evolutionary theory must be
    > deprived of any association with the word "science" because
    > science is equated with truth in our culture (and evolution is not
    > true).
    > These convictions do not imply that Moorad and the intelligent design
    > people are necessarily wrong, but it does strongly suggest that
    > physical evidence is secondary, and that the discussion needs to be
    > broadened to include the real issues. Can we support or discount these
    > convictions theologically?
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    > Joel W. Cannon                   |   (724)223-6146
    > Physics Department               |
    > Washington and Jefferson College |
    > Washington, PA 15301             |

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 12:48:10 EDT