Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 14:22:46 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised"

    To attempt a reply. You have misunderstood both Ratsch and Gould in your
    desire to keep in with Ellen White's revelation, and then have the gall to
    say I know nothing aobut the philosophy of science. You make a silly
    dismissal of early religious geologists by claiming they had bought into
    Baconian science and thus wrong. And then say that before the Flood
    uniformity doesnt apply.

    There is no rational response to inaccuracy and irrationality. It is the
    usual problem of not being able to discuss with those who move goalposts and
    are determined to misunderstand almost every aspect of science.

    All because you want to reject what most Christians have always beleived,
    that Genesis is not literal.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "allenroy" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 4:46 AM
    Subject: Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised

    > Michael Roberts wrote:
    > > > Not at all. For physics and chemistry to be done they need at
    > least these
    > > two important presuppositions: 1) uniformity of law over space and
    > time, and
    > > 2) uniformity of processes over space and time. Both Naturalism and
    > > Creationism have these presuppositions, so physics and chemistry are
    > pretty
    > > much the same in either paradigm. The only difference might be when
    > time
    > > becomes an issue. Such as when it comes to the Creation week of
    > earth's
    > > biosphere and the Flood Cataclysm. Witness evidence supplied by the
    > Holy
    > > Spirit through inspiration constrains the time since those events.
    > > > Allen
    > >
    > > Michael Roberts wrote:
    > > This is simply appealing to a false understanding of the Bible with
    > roots with
    > > the so-called revelations to Ellen White. It is acceptable neither to
    > those
    > > who accord authority to the Bible or to those who accept the findings
    > of
    > > science.
    > Allen:
    > So far as I know, Del Ratzsch is not an SDA. He is a Professor of
    > Philosophy
    > at Calvin College, which is not a SDA college. While, the article he
    > wrote was
    > published in an SDA magazine, it does not mean that Del is a SDA. SDA
    > magazines
    > do not publish material only by SDAs.
    > > Michael Roberts wrote:
    > > If you are willing to believe such unbelievable stuff then there is no
    > point
    > > in attempting any theological or rational discussion. It has no more
    > to do
    > > with the Holy Spirit than the cult in Waco some 10 years ago.
    > Allen:
    > Boy! Someone sure pushed your buttons!!
    > The concepts present by Ratzsch are not SDA teaching. It is basic
    > philosophy
    > involving science which can be found on the internet. It appears to be
    > something which you know very little about. The two basic
    > presuppositions
    > (mentioned above) that are absolutely essential for science to function,
    > I did
    > not learn from any SDA source, but from atheist Stephen J. Gould. I
    > merely note
    > that these presuppositions can also have a Biblical philosophical basis,
    > rather
    > than just a Naturalistic basis.
    > > Michael Roberts wrote:
    > > Sorry to be blunt, but but those who want to add to the revelation of
    > Christ
    > > are totally and utterly wrong and should not be regarded as anything
    > but some
    > > kind of heretic. It would be far more honest to say that you reject
    > the
    > > teaching of science because of the visions of a Victorian lady and not
    > to
    > > pretend that your beliefs have any scientific substance to them.
    > Allen:
    > Not only does it appear that you know very little about the
    > philosophical
    > concepts Ratzsch (and others) is talking about, you also know very
    > little about
    > SDA beliefs and history. And it appears that what little you do know
    > about the
    > latter is entirely erroneous, highly prejudicial, and perhaps,
    > deliberately
    > malevolent.
    > Allen

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 20 2003 - 14:22:51 EDT