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

From: <>
Date: Thu May 28 2009 - 03:22:07 EDT

Hi Don,
You wrote: <There's no scientific reason for saying that outside entities were not active in these processes--and indeed they may have been--other than that, if such entities were thus active, science would be unable to explain the processes. Science has had some success in explaining the processes, so the assumption among scientists is that, given enough info and enough time, all such processes are explainable.>
I,m curious what you would say about <origins> instead of <processes>, Don? Are they non-existent within the province of <science> to investigate? Are all origins (enacted) by <outside entities> eventually explainable by <science> too?
Two things: First, if you want to argue something like saying <science has been successful>, then you need to confront a couple of things. Is <science> successful at the cost of other types of knowledge that are then deemed <less successful>? Theology is one type of knowledge that has been cast as <less successful> in response to <science,s successes>.
Second, you seem to be saying two contradictory things at the same time. A) that <science would be unable to explain the process> of actions by <outside entities> and B) that since science studies processes, it will eventually explain the processes if not the actions. Are you suggesting that <science evolves> or something like the following: <science is progressive and studies processes of change in natural or physical (etc.) objects, therefore it cannot help but eventually explain all natural or physical processes of change>?
<Scientists accept the limitations of evolution as if such limitations were more or less ignorable because they understand how limited their raw data are and assume that, if the data were not so limited, the science would not be so limited.> - Don
I find it problematic to hear that scientists won,t accept the limitations of evolution. Isn.t your argument basically that <science> is not as <unlimited> as <scientists> claim it to be by suggesting it is ultimately <progressive>? If <science> is always <inevitably progressing> it is therefore <never limited>. This perspective would be to hail <scientism>, rather than to promote a healthy balance of <sciences, philosophy and religion/faith/theology>.
The ideology of <evolutionism>, not the science of <evolutionary biology>, could be claimed as partially responsible for such a view, Don, if that is what you are suggesting.
G.A. __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 28 03:22:26 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 28 2009 - 03:22:26 EDT