Re: [asa] Re: [asa] American Scientific Affiliation * Whatever happened to its mission?

>[Bill's talk of Occam's razor is nonsense in my opinion--my belief in
God, his governance, design, the soul, etc. is not based on
science--it's based on divine revelation in scripture and in Christ
and personal knowledge through the Holy Spirit--of course, unbelievers
will scoff at such claims--isn't that what we expect?]<

Yes, as is identical misuse of it by atheists. The fundamental
problem is the unbiblical assumption that God ought to be found by
science rather than from the Bible (Ecclesiastes, Job 28, I Cor. 1-4,
etc.). Another problem with this argument is the fact that science
seeks to maximize both simplicity and explanatory power. Dembski,
various atheists, etc. claim that a scientific model without God is
simpler than one with God (unless scientifically detectable ID-type
events exist), so Occam cuts out God. However, a model with God may
have greater explanatory power than one without. This is analagous to
the quest in physics for a grand unified theory, etc. Physics with
separate laws for each fundamental force has one less equation than
physics with a unifying equation for multiple forces, plus the
individual equations derived from it. Having a unifying equation is
seen as more desirable. The analogy breaks down in that God is not
integrated into a scientific model the way a new equation is. Rather,
a grasp of theology provides the philosophical framework in which one
can do science, whereas the atheist must make ad hoc assumptions about
the nature of reality if he thinks about philosophical justification
for science. In other words, this misuse of Occam rests on a
simplistic definition of simple.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.