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

On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:13:23 -0700 Lawrence Johnston
<johnston@uidaho.edu> writes:
> 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
>
Larry,
The immediate answer to your question is that faith would be destroyed.
However, authentication by IAA or any group associated with them would be
totally suspect. The indications I have are that they reject anything
they don't like and try to silence all dissent from their views.

But there is another side to the matter. Could there be such an
authenticated ossuary? Had there been such, it would have been trotted
out during the first century. Also the mass of eyewitnesses contradict
the possibility of its existence. The fact that the earliest adherents
were willing to endure imprisonment, torture and death for their faith in
the risen Christ indicates that they were unconditionally persuaded of
the facts. That's history.

The question then must be whether you're talking historical possibility
or nonsense.
Dave
Received on Sat May 7 15:49:17 2005