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

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Mon May 25 2009 - 12:07:51 EDT


I think the term "natural" is equivocal. Witness the endless discussions on this list on how to characterize that term. On the other hand, physical is much less equivocal. If something cannot be detected by purely physical devises, then that entity is not physical, therefore, nonphysical/supernatural. For instance, the number pi, is nonphysical--there is no exact, physical representation of it. I think to say that pi is non-natural or unnatural does not ring right since it is not clear what natural means.

The study of man in anthropology and physiology involves all three aspects of Nature. The supernatural ought not to be avoided in such studies. Chimpanzee and dog behavior can be studied by describing the physical aspect of such living animals, just like we do humans; however, the nonphysical description is probably difficult since we cannot communicate with such living beings.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Dave Wallace
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> I consider the whole of reality to be physical/nonphysical/supernatural.
Just to clarify, do you consider anthropology, physiology etc to be
sciences in the nonphysical realm. Where would you place studies of
chimpanzee behavior etc. Even my dogs can exhibit purposeful behavior.

Other terms that could be adapted to mean similar things would be
natural/non_natural/supernatural where non_natural could be replaced by
other words like unnatural or bright but I think your names are better.

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 25 12:08:02 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 25 2009 - 12:08:02 EDT