Re: Kansas defining science from Re: There they go again

Hi, Sheila and other esteemed ASAgents -

In my understanding from reading the ID literature, the ID folks
fully recognize that Science continues to explore the unknown, and
usually comes up with acceptable Natural explanations.

Their beef with "Naturalists" like Dawkins is that for them
explanations can only be acceptable if they invoke exclusively
natural causes. Miracles are out. The resurrection of Jesus must
be rejected, no matter what the witnesses attested in the way of
physical evidence.

For Dave "Bivalve": For Historians, who try to be scientific,
eyewitness accounts are often acceptable. And the evidence for the
field of Evolutionary Biology is mostly historical.

Here's a slight digression:

Hey, here's a test question: How would it affect you if
archeologists dug up a well-authenticated limestone bonebox, loaded
with bones, and nails sticking thru the hands and feet, with a
well-authenticated inscription in Aramaic: "Jesus, son of Joseph,
Carpenter of Nazareth" Even authenticated by the Israeli
Antiquities Authority? (Actually I'm sure the IAA would love to
authenticate it, with or without the help of experts!)

Best, Larry Johnston

============================================================
Lawrence H. Johnston home: 917 E. 8th st.
professor of physics, emeritus Moscow, Id 83843
University of Idaho (208) 882-2765
Fellow of the American Physical Society
============================================================

Date sent: Fri, 06 May 2005 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sheila Wilson <sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kansas defining science from Re: There they go again
To: bivalve <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>, ASA <asa@calvin.edu>

> That is a great explanation. To expound a little: ID says in part that if we don't
> understand something, it must be supernatural. Science says we don't understand because
> we don't have all the evidence or knowledge required to understand. If this is true,
> where does the supernatural fit in to any explanation? What would cause us to believe in
> God if we think this way? If everything can be defined by natural explanations, then
> where is God?
>
> I don't believe ID is correct nor do I believe in a young earth. I also don't know where
> to draw the line between the natural and the supernatural explanations.
>
> Sheila
>
>
>
> bivalve <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> wrote:
> > The article further states:
> >
> > Perhaps the most significant shift would be in the very definition of science - instead
> > of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would
> > describe it as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing,
> > measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more
> > adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
> >
> > While I don't agree with the new trial, isn't that what science is?
>
> The key change is the deletion of the phrase "natural explanations". ID advocates want to
> allow non-natural explanations. Actually, I would agree that such explanations cannot be
> excluded a priori; however, theological considerations suggest that non-natural
> explanations will be either bogus (astrology, erroneous antievolutionary claims, etc.) or
> else not amenable to scientific experimentation (e.g., Biblical miracles, which were
> situation-specific).
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> University of Alabama
> Biodiversity & Systematics
> Dept. Biological Sciences
> Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
>
> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the
> Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
>
>
>
> Sheila McGinty Wilson
> sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Received on Sat May 7 15:12:23 2005