Re: Signs of Scientism

David wrote:

> *I discussed these issues in my extended earlier post.*
>
> Ok. If I recall, this discussion was touched off by a comment
> concerning
> the possibility of finding a "plausible solution to the origin of
> life" and
> before that a statement that "common descent itself is not the
> subject of
> any serious debate." If MN is the appropriately limited tool that
> you've
> said it is, and alternative "theological" descriptions of the data
> that
> don't assume MN are epistemelogically valid, I'm not sure how you can
> come
> to such conclusions.

I previously posted an extended statement addressing the issue of
whether science could recognize and demonstrate "miraculous" action. I
discussed both biblical events, modern claims of the miraculous, and
events in natural history. That is what I was referring to.

Concerning your statement above -- theological arguments and claims are
not "alternative descriptions of the data." This immediately sets up
scientific and theological issues as though they are competing claims
of the same kind, addressing the same kinds of questions. They are
not. Theology and science are complementary ways of knowing.

Keith
Received on Fri Jan 20 11:34:08 2006