[asa] Re: [asa] Re: [asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Tue Oct 21 2008 - 08:34:59 EDT

Gregory -

May I make 2 suggestions?

1st, instead of just complaining that those in the "natural sciences" don't know how to deal with the matters in question, why don't you, as social scientist, make what you see as a positive contribution?

2d, what's to the point isn't so much "the gap between human-made and non-human-made things." It's the distinction between, & also the relationship between, creature-made things and God-made things. So in addition to input from the natural & social sciences, theology should play a major role in the discussion - something that IDers have persistently downplayed or denied.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: asa@lists.calvin.edu ; Ted Davis ; john_walley@yahoo.com
  Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:20 AM
  Subject: [asa] Re: [asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others

        Hi John,

        You wrote: "But you can't deny that as a programmer I have the ability to write a program that modifies its behavior at runtime based on external inupts. We see this everyday."

        I doubt that Timaeus is denying it! It is rather your presumption than his perspective.

        What remains a challenge for your position, John, is that you have an unsophisticated understanding of the similarities and differences between natural sciences, human-social sciences, applied sciences, humanities, etc. Your 'hierarchy of knowledge' or 'map of sciences' is conveniently absent.

        As a 'programmer' you can and do certainly 'design' things. There is no argument here from Timaeus. What your hang-up is, it is that you fail to bridge the gap between your soul and your physical matter. Is your 'computer code' a spiritual thing or merely a material thing; it was made, I'm sure you'll agree, by an en-souled material human being. Is there then a spiritual dimension to programmed code (even if programmed by atheists)?

        ID's main problem is that it (like TE/EC) has no solution for how to bridge the gap between human-made and non-human-made things. It is too concerned with the outdated (i.e. 20th century) 'dialogue between science and religion,' which simply must give way to a more holistic understanding of the present and future. Sooner or later, the human-social sciences will be acknowledged for their contribution to knowledge that exists alongside, above and/or beyond the reach of natural science, theology, philosophy, applied science, etc.

        But ASA does not yet seem ready to enter into such an inclusive conversation. 'Science' to ASA mainly means 'natural science.' Let's not kid ourselves otherwise.


  Instant message from any web browser! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 21 08:35:31 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 21 2008 - 08:35:32 EDT