Re: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Date: Sat Apr 05 2008 - 12:50:29 EDT

Or we might say that it "shows up" in the consistency and stability and
coherence of the laws of nature.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>; "Randy Isaac"
<randyisaac@comcast.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views

> It doesn't have to show up at all if God continually sustains and governs
> creation by cooperating with creatures in accord with the lawlike
> properties with which God has endowed them.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 11:00 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views
>
>
> Surely, one can believe that "God sustains His creation, which means 'no
> God, no nothing'"together with deism, viz., God does not intervene with
> the affairs of human life and the laws of the universe. What if one
> supposes the former and rejects the latter, how far away from deism are
> our views. That is to say, "to what extent God sustaining the creation
> shows up in the existence and temporal development of all that there is?"
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Randy Isaac
> Sent: Fri 4/4/2008 7:41 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views
>
>
> Greg,
> I've read only Kuhn and read about Popper's views. Though I'm interested
> in knowing what they have to say, I'm not inclined to spend the time
> reading them. Nor, to my knowledge, do I know many scientists who do. Most
> of us prefer to just do the science. We know it when we see it but can't
> always define it. Are you indirectly confirming that all the paradigm
> changes they consider still retain the core of a belief that science is
> possible?
> Moorad, I'm not sure I understand your question but I do believe that the
> fact that anything exists at all and that what does exist is coherent and
> orderly is one of the more potent arguments for the existence of God.
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gregory Arago <mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> To: Alexanian, Moorad <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu> ; Randy Isaac
> <mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net> ; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 5:27 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views
>
> "But I wonder if any of these 4 (or others) philosophers of science ever
> considered a paradigm shift that included abandoning the idea of a
> consistent order in the universe?" - Randy Isaac
>
> Yes, those 4 are all philosophers of science. But also, as I pointed out
> in the previous post, they are trained in physics, mathematics and
> psychology. So they are also 'scientists' as far as the term goes. As to
> your above question, Randy, it makes me wonder if you have read any of
> them, especially Feyerabend. This indeed was the main purpose of the
> thread to discover. Thanks to those who have already commented on this
> survey in public and private. - G.A.
>
>
> "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>
> Scripturally, God sustains His creation, which means "no God, no nothing."
> Therefore, to what extent God sustaining the creation shows up in the
> existence and temporal development of all that there is?
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Randy Isaac
> Sent: Fri 4/4/2008 10:56 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views
>
>
>
> Jim,
> Maybe we need to differentiate between the perspective of a given
> scientist and that which develops from the collective perspective of the
> scientific community. Certainly, each scientist approaches the data from a
> paradigmatic framework and is not (cannot, I think) be "purely objective",
> whatever that might mean. However, part of the essence of scientific
> methodology is independent corroboration and reproducibility and
> acceptance
> by the collective community of scientists in that particular field. In
> principle, this means that scientists from all sorts of different
> sociological and philosophical perspectives weigh in on the matter. This
> doesn't mean that complete objectivity without influence by any paradigm
> is
> achieved but it does make a big difference in sifting out spurious results
> that might be unique to a given paradigm. What needs to remain in common
> to
> all paradigms is the core belief that there is order in the universe and
> that science is possible
>
> This core belief is what differentiates many creationist and ID
> presuppositions. Creationists typically claim significant discontinuities
> in
> the laws of nature. This means that whatever order there is in the
> universe
> was different in the past, the so-called non-uniformitarian assumption.
> Some, though not all, ID perspectives include the idea that certain
> aspects
> of the order in the universe bear the hallmarks of intelligent
> manipulation
> rather than typical cause and effect relationships.
>
> As a result, when the paradigm that shapes one's conclusions differs at
> such a basic level, all sorts of red flags are raised. It's no wonder that
> conflicts ensue. But I wonder if any of these 4 (or others) philosophers
> of
> science ever considered a paradigm shift that included abandoning the idea
> of a consistent order in the universe? My guess is that when they talk of
> paradigm shifts, they reall mean something very different.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Mahaffy"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 7:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views
>
>
>> Folks
>>
>> Kuhn -- yes and he was very important in helping me understand that
>> science does not work just objectively
>> Popper -- am somewhat aware of him but have not read him and way back
>> when
>> I picked up one of his books did not find it easy to read.
>> Others -- not really.
>>
>>
>> It is interesting how often on this group science appears in many posts
>> to
>> be objective and not really influenced by paradigms.
>>
>> James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
>> 498 4th Ave NE
>> Biology Department FAX : 712 722-1198
>> Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
> boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
> <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 5 12:52:30 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 05 2008 - 12:52:30 EDT