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

That would be end of orthodox Christianity.

There is a joke about this. Many years ago the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem
(RC archaeologists) found such a tomb and couldn't handle it so they
consulted the pope. The pope rang Paul Tillich who replied" Why worry, I
never knew he ever lived."

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Johnston" <johnston@uidaho.edu>
To: "Sheila Wilson" <sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net>;
<asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>; "bivalve"
<bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 8:13 PM
Subject: 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 16:39:56 2005