From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 17:12:14 EDT
My reading of Phil’s writings is that he does know the difference between unadulterated science and scientific thought that is heavy laden with extra philosophical/theological baggage. Some of us know the difference, but let us face it many scientists do not and make asses of themselves.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Murphy
Sent: Thu 10/9/2003 4:50 PM
To: John W Burgeson
Cc: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Phillip Johnson
John W Burgeson wrote:
.........................
> Phil's primary error, IMHO, is not understanding that philosophical
> naturalism (the universe is all there is) and methodological naturalism
> (science is a game which investigates causality as if no gods exist) are
> two very separate ideas. To the extent he DOES know this, he makes the
> error that most scientists don't understand the difference........................
This is, of course, a serious error. I think equally serious is the fact that
he doesn't know much about either science or theology - & that that really doesn't
matter to him. He seems to think that his philosophical expertise, such as it is,
obviates the need for such detailed understanding of the topics he considers.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 17:13:12 EDT