RE: [asa] Woo and Response on KUNC

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Thu Apr 03 2008 - 15:46:29 EDT

In the study of the physical aspect of Nature, one need not bring the human being who sets up the equipment that is used to collect the physical data that lead to the laws of Nature, which summarize the data. Note that the scientist need not be part of the subject matter that is being studied. Clearly, the notion of the supernatural need not be invoked. It is important to remark, however, that we are studying the mental concepts or models we develop of the physical aspect of Nature, which is certainly not identical to the real thing.

 

However, if the subject of study is the scientist himself, then the question of consciousness, rationality, human creativity, etc. arise and it is here where the purely physical description, I believe, may not be applicable and the notion of the supernatural may be unavoidable.

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: Rich Blinne [mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com]
Sent: Thu 4/3/2008 2:48 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] Woo and Response on KUNC

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:

        I suggest we think seriously if we believe that there is intelligence behind the creation and, possibly, share our thoughts with the rest of us. In particular, how that intelligence manifests itself in the data collected by experimental scientists and on the very intelligence needed by scientists to study Nature and all that there is in it.
        
        
        Moorad
        
        

This is illustrative of exactly what I wanted to talk about. The answer to the first question is utterly obvious. Of course the answer is yes, but since the language of ID has been hijacked by the IDM this question apparently needs to be asked. The ASA has a reference to the Apostle's Creed in our statement of beliefs. "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth." This says far more than a belief in an arbitrary "intelligent designer". So, as much as there is complaints about evolutionary creationism it says far more than ID about the origin of the Universe.

Scripture tells us one of the hallmarks of Creation by God is order (cf. 1 Cor. 14). Science attests to this order. But you cannot argue in my opinion from that order in the Universe to the (philosophically necessary) existence of God. Thus, what is in debate is whether intelligent design -- which all of us believes in -- is *scientifically* detectable. I am not sure that this is possible even in theory. It is up to those who claim that not only is possible but they have found such a detection mechanism to show that it is so. As Carl Sagan aptly said extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. It is out of bounds to personally attack those who are skeptical of such claims as believing in "scientism" or are persecuting fellow Christians. Submit the evidence, put it under peer review and make your case. If you are successful there are many of us who would be more than happy to be wrong. However, laying out fear, uncertainty, and doubt before the case is made is des!
 tructive and corrosive to the scientific enterprise in particular and society in general.

Note: any use of the word "you" above is not directed at any particular person but rather to a generic ID proponent.

Rich Blinne (Member ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Apr 3 15:47:43 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 03 2008 - 15:47:43 EDT