The definition of science I am advocating is probably the same that others
have done expect I use direct language and not jargons. Science has to do with
physical explanations and theories, not theological. If such is the case, then
it is clear that the data for science must be determined by physical entities
alone. The physical determines the physical, so to speak. Physical theories
have nothing to do with people, although it is people that work them out.
Otherwise, it would be subjective. Aliens will get the same science as we do!
But man, as spiritual beings, can detect not only the physical but also the
>===== Original Message From Joel Cannon <firstname.lastname@example.org> =====
>> From: Moorad Alexanian <email@example.com>
>> 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
>The enclosure is revealing, but it avoids what I suspect are
>the real issues, such as what theological lenses inform what you see
>and what you want to define as science. I state once again that a
>theological viewpoint does not necessarily discredit a position. We
>hold theological truth to be valid. But it raises the question of the
>warrant for a particular theological position. What something do you
>know about scripture that would inform this discussion?
>Are there other people who define science like you do. What would the
>warrant be for this?
>If people can recognize that a human wrote the physics articles I
>published, have I failed to publish a true science?
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> an intelligent designer from science but via the intelligence of humans and
>> not the complexity in nature. Moorad
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joel Cannon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> To: <email@example.com>
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 12:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: Challenge (fwd)...Theological assumption and scientific
>> > > > 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
>> > 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 |
>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 - 15:54:58 EDT