RE: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Mon May 25 2009 - 02:45:06 EDT

Your definition of <science> is one of the narrowest (or most strict) around. You say <science> is *just* about physics or the physical. Yet do you also acknowledge how your education in the field of physics biases your perspective?
A <purely physical description> of reality is only a partial one. And it is in many cases a mirage and not reality. Surely you agree with this. You claim some privilege to <operational science> in contrast to <origins science>. Yet you seem to not have been able to transcend the physical sciences in which you were educated. What about <sciences of the non-physical>? Are there none possible by definition?
I,m asking you to step-up your philosophy of science here, Moorad.
In other words, feel free to criticise the American way for its reductionistic views. But you are still not offering anything further that will take us beyond American reductionism, fragmentationism or pragmatism.
Why is this? I would have thought your Armenian education could help you exceed this...

--- On Sun, 5/24/09, Alexanian, Moorad <> wrote:

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Subject: RE: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)
To: "wjp" <>, "Cameron Wybrow" <>
Cc: "" <>
Received: Sunday, May 24, 2009, 8:43 PM


When you refer to the “genetic encoding,” are you thinking of the genetic encoding of a living organism or just a bunch of atoms and molecules? Surely, how life came about is one of the hardest nuts to crack in the whole notion of a purely physical description of all that there is.

Moorad __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 25 02:45:43 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 25 2009 - 02:45:43 EDT