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

Ted,
I agree with your analysis, but I think there is another aspect. Stephen
C. Meyer showed that there was no a priori way to exclude terms from
science. This is seen in the development of the various scientific
disciplines. You noted Leibnitz objection to gravitation, which works in
Newton's theory even though there is no explanation why it exists and
functions as it does, merely that it is detected locally by weight and
functions in the equations, tying a bunch of phenomena together. In the
centuries since Newton, various individuals have come up with new notions
that can be formulated theoretically with some form of measurement and
manipulation. Although we think that we've now covered everything, we
can't prove that there can be no new scientific discipline. It appears to
me that ID wants to invert Meyer with the insistence that desired terms
(design) must be included in science, even without specifying the
designer. "Cannot exclude" does not mean "must include," or even "can
include."

I think that we can conclude that science cannot exclude a Creator,
although we need to go to metaphysics to deal with the term in a rational
way, and to revelation to understand the nature of the Creator. I have
not found a basis for creation any place except the Hebrew scriptures,
and agree with George that a proper understanding involves the
incarnation.
Dave

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 24 15:10:51 2007