Re: definition of science (Dooyeweerd)

Thanks for that Terry.

I have atempted to summarise a Dooyeweerdian approach to the natural
sciences here:

http://www.freewebs.com/reformational/

I'd be interested in any comments or criticisms.

Cheers,

Steve

>From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>CC: zylu@calvin.edu, leeg@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: definition of science (Dooyeweerd)
>Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:20:58 -0600
>
>Here's my limited defense of ID. When I "debate" these guys, I always give
>this in principle acceptance of the idea. I don't think there is any
>empirical evidence to support conclusions along these lines, but I don't
>rule it out that it is somehow unscientific in principle. If what ID is
>talking about is what I'm describing below, then we can easily do science
>(in fact, we already do in as much as disciplines are autonomous) in some
>of these terms.
>
>This flows out of what you might call a Dooyeweerdian "Reformed"
>philosophy. Look at the PSCF/JASA indicies if you want to find out some
>more about that. There have been a few ASA members (some associated with
>Calvin College, but others as well) who operate in this framework.

<snip>
Received on Sat May 7 12:35:05 2005