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, then 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 11:33:05 2006