I knew we would eventually get to that topic! Epistemology is what I have
seen wielded by most Socratics (who deny evolution). And I aways respond:
"OCCAMS RAZOR". This is what science is all about. Looking for causes for
phenomena in the natural realm.
It DOES not mean that science discounts the supernatural though. It is in
the extremist camps ONLY where the supernatural is altogether ruled out.
I will read the book you had suggested, but I remind you that science has
it's own epistemology. Logic alone does not prove a case. And consilience
and/or Unity of Knowledge (like Utopia) is an unachievable ideal.
Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>
> Dear William,
>
> It so happens that I just began to read the book "Consilience: the unity of
> knowledge" by Edward O. Wilson. However, what I am talking about comes from
> a philosophy course I took while an undergraduate at the University of Rhode
> Island. My philosophy professor, William Oliver Martin, was the author of
> the book we used, "The Order and Integration of Knowledge." The best course
> I ever took! It is hard reading but it is a must for all interested in
> epistemology.
>
> I am quitting for the day, finals to grade,
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> Cc: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>;
> asa@udomo3.calvin.edu <asa@udomo3.calvin.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
>
> >Dear Moorad:
> >
> >What you describe below is consilience. It seems plausible, but probable?
> >I doubt it since not even two individuals (within the same field) can see
> >eye-to-eye on every issue. Give it up! You will sleep better at night :)
> >
> >Best Wishes,
> >William - N6RKY
> >
> >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear William,
> >>
> >> The finite human mind must analyze, take things apart, before it can
> study
> >> it. Afterwards there must be an integration of the knowledge acquired by
> the
> >> different fields of study. That is to say, a synthesis of the various
> >> disciplines used to study the parts. For instance, different disciples
> can
> >> study the same thing but with different objectives. For example, man can
> be
> >> studied by physicists, chemists, biologists, theologians, psychiatrists,
> >> etc. The thing is not what one of the disciplines say it is but what all
> >> the disciplines say that it is. It is this integration of knowledge that
> I
> >> keep referring to. Theology forms an integral part of knowledge and ought
> to
> >> be part of the integrated wealth of knowledge. The unification that
> >> physicists talk about is within the field of physics and not with other
> >> forms of knowledge. Of course, there must be unification within a given
> >> field before that field can be unified with other fields.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >>
> >> Moorad
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> >> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> >> Cc: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>;
> >> asa@udomo3.calvin.edu <asa@udomo3.calvin.edu>
> >> Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:37 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
> >>
> >> >Dear Moorad:
> >> >
> >> >Unity of Knowledge and Unified Theory are different subjects.
> Unification
> >> >of Forces was Werner Heisneberg's and Albert Einstein's dream. I'm sure
> a
> >> >unification there will eventually happen.
> >> >
> >> >As for Unified Knowledge? Not in this life or the next. Monotheism
> cannot
> >> >have Unity of Knowledge except for God Himself. Even Christ in
> scripture:
> >> >"Does not know the day nor the hour of the end".
> >> >
> >> >Many theologians claim that Man can achieve this unity or consilience.
> It
> >> >cannot be as long as we are confined in both finiteness and in time.
> That
> >> >is a sad but realistic picture of Man's reason.
> >> >
> >> >Now as for your problem with macro-evolution? It does not invalidate
> what
> >> >scripture has to say any more than taking Revelation symbolically.
> That's
> >> >a bunch of HOG WASH propaganda from the Fundamentalist/Creationist camp.
> >> >
> >> >Now... I've seen another post in reply to your problem with evolution.
> It
> >> >may serve you well to study the issue well. I will take a moment to
> help,
> >> >if you wish to carry this on with me.
> >> >
> >> >Best Wishes,
> >> >William - N6RKY
> >> >
> >> >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear William,
> >> >>
> >> >> We all advocate unity of knowledge. The question is that we must unify
> >> ALL
> >> >> knowledge, viz.., the sciences, theology, the social sciences, etc.
> The
> >> >> process of integration of knowledge should not lead to nihilism--no
> >> >> knowledge should be, a priori, eliminated.
> >> >>
> >> >> That God sustains the creation can be viewed as a continuous creative
> >> >> process. But the latter does not imply that theistic evolution is the
> >> >> logical conclusion of God sustaining the creation.
> >> >>
> >> >> I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. If such is not the case
> then
> >> we
> >> >> can pick and choose--the Bible becomes a smorgasbord. What is
> changing
> >> with
> >> >> time is our interpretation of Scripture. Much like in science where
> the
> >> >> underlying laws of nature do not change but our interpretations of
> these
> >> >> laws does change.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does theistic evolution involves macroevolution as well as
> >> microevolution? I
> >> >> have often said that the Fall of Man is a problem for theistic
> evolution.
> >> >> Wherein comes the will of man to fall in theistic evolution?
> >> >>
> >> >> I am a firm believer that all true knowledge is One. In fact, it was
> >> Werner
> >> >> Heisenberg who said that the unification of all forces in nature had
> to
> >> do
> >> >> with monotheism. Both are appealing to the mind of man---a
> manifestation
> >> of
> >> >> the image of God in man.
> >> >>
> >> >> I do not believe that man can prove the existence of God. Man is
> >> imperfect,
> >> >> God is perfect. God can only be known as a limiting being from
> imperfect
> >> >> being. We know that the integers are either odd or even, but is
> infinity
> >> odd
> >> >> or even?
> >> >>
> >> >> Take care,
> >> >>
> >> >> Moorad
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> >> >> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> >> >> Cc: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>;
> >> >> asa@udomo3.calvin.edu <asa@udomo3.calvin.edu>
> >> >> Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 5:44 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
> >> >>
> >> >> >Dear Moorad:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Theistic Evolutionists do not necessarily advocate Unity of
> Knowledge.
> >> It
> >> >> >is held more frequently among theorists than practical science. Yes,
> I
> >> am
> >> >> >a theoritician. At least you have me pegged -- but not Theistic
> >> Evolution
> >> >> >itself. Most people in this camp agree that Man's Reason is
> >> insufficient.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But... We do have enough knowledge to realize that evolution is a
> part
> >> of
> >> >> >the creative process. And if one also believes in theism; then
> >> LOGICALLY,
> >> >> >Theistic Evolution is unavoidable. Any other conclusion would deny
> >> what's
> >> >> >known to science today. I pingeoned holed your comments because it
> >> seemed
> >> >> >typical of a fundamentalist/creationist point of view.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Now let's get into a little philosophy here: How can a monotheist
> deny
> >> it
> >> >> >to be true that there is no unity of knowledge (in this life or the
> >> next)
> >> >> >is beyond me! All knowledge is of God -- period.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Now let's do a little theology here: St. Thomas Aguinas's proofs for
> >> God,
> >> >> >he employs Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological proofs.
> Because
> >> he
> >> >> >employed these methods (and more) it is certain that theologians have
> >> and
> >> >> >do subscribe to "some form of" Unity of Knowledge.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Is there enough to prove the case?? The answer is no. Theology like
> >> Unity
> >> >> >of Knowledge and Unified Theory still needs research and discovery.
> But
> >> a
> >> >> >case does exist and most theorists are heading in this direction as
> >> noted
> >> >> >in your original post. Even Stephen Hawking is relenting on his
> >> rhetorics
> >> >> >against God and Unified Theory.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Best Wishes,
> >> >> >William - N6RKY
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >William A. Wetzel
> >> >icq-uin# 13983514
> >> >http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
> >> >http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
> >> >mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
> >> >mailto:n6rky@qsl.net
> >> >
> >
> >--
> >William A. Wetzel
> >icq-uin# 13983514
> >http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
> >http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
> >mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
> >mailto:n6rky@qsl.net
> >
-- William A. Wetzel icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net