RE: [asa] Coulter, and science

Historical science = history + (results of) experimental science. It
is important to remark that historical sciences deal with unique
events. There is no way results of experimental science can disagree
with the Christian faith. Of course, God can change everything at His
whim and so the whole of the physical universe can change, but I
doubt that.

BTW, the so-called war between science and religion is actually due
to the historical aspect of religion, say resurrection, miracles,
etc., and the historical element in the historical sciences not with
experimental science.

Criminality, drinking problems, etc. can all be related to DNA. So
what, still the moral issue is not eliminated by such findings. Those
with the criminal-gene still have a free will to exercise. So does
the homosexual. One can never say "my genes made me do it" since
there is an element of exercising one's free will. It is better to
say, "The Devil made me do it," which is morally governed.

Moorad

________________________________

From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 7/10/2006 8:05 AM
To: Michael Roberts
Cc: Alexanian, Moorad; Pim van Meurs; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Coulter, and science

On 7/10/06, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

        I get rather frustrated by those who don't seem to be able to accept
the
        validity of historical science and pit it against experimental science.
        Those who argue this simply don't know what they are talking about and
        should learn a little bit about science before they sound off.
        I am sorry to say this Moorad but you have rabbited on about historical
        science far too often. You need to learn a little geology.

Michael,

I think my kids would say "Ooh that's well harsh!!"

However, I do think the dichotomy made between experimental and
historical science is an artificial one. In both cases, observations
are made and then inferences are made based on those observations.
Although Moorad stated that the findings of experimental science are
never in contradiction to Christianity, I don't think that's true.
The inferences made could just as easily contradict Christianity (or
your preferred interpretation of it) if they were based on
experimental science. What if experimental science "found" (=
inferred) beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality was an inborn
condition that you could do nothing about? Then an at face
interpretation of (I think) somewhere in Romans, is that for a woman
to have sexual relations with another woman is
"unnatural" (something like "their women abandoned natural relations
and burned with lust for each other"). So if experimental science
provided evidence to infer that in fact lesbianism was a natural
phenomenon, the!
  n on the face of it you'd have a contradiction, and it would have
nothing to do with historical science.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 10 11:18:34 2006