Re: [asa] Coulter, and science

Yes, I was harsh. Over the years Moorad has refused to consider the =
principles of historical science and in a subsequent post wrote =
"Historical science =3D history + (results of) experimental science. " =
He is plain wrong there. To follow the logic of his false view of =
science, we would not have been able to find much oil or other
minerals, =
nor could we say anything about e.g. global warming.

Bill was right to mention Young's book (now being revised) as this =
explains historical methods in science.

All need to remember that science isn't only experimental, it is also =
historical, descriptive/comparative and theoretical, though at times
one =
cannot make strict demarcations. All this is complicated by the =
"creationist" categorisation of operational and origins science, which =
again is nonsense and a way of denigrating historical science which,
of =
course, leads to the ultimate blasphemy of an ancient earth and worse =
still evilution!

Michael
   ----- Original Message -----=20
   From: Iain Strachan=20
   To: Michael Roberts=20
   Cc: Alexanian, Moorad ; Pim van Meurs ; asa@calvin.edu=20
   Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 1:05 PM
   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=20
     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" (=3D 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, then on the face of it you'd have a =
contradiction, and it would have nothing to do with historical
science.=20

   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 11:22:34 2006