RE: [asa] the Way Science Works/

It is erroneous to speak of "science indicates..." or that "evolution suggests..." The proper way is to say that some data together with some assumed, prior information is such that one can infer such and such a thing. That is all one can say. It is easy to agree with what the data is, what is difficult and contentious is what prior information we use to analyze the data.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Opderbeck
Sent: Fri 7/27/2007 12:18 PM
To: gordon brown
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

Wendee said: "Science indicates evolution not design."
 
I think this is wrong on several fronts. Most basically, we can say "science indicates evolution. As to 'design,' that is a metaphysical concept about which science is silent." Beyond that, I think it's possible to say that " evolution suggests design," ala Simon Conway Morris.
 
But if we say "evolution not design," that is playing right into the warfare hypothesis.

On 7/27/07, gordon brown <gbrown@colorado.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, WENDEE HOLTCAMP wrote:
>
> > Not to me, creation as a process indicates evolution to me, not design. How
> > can we surmise or guess what God did before he began creation? That just
> > seems presumptuous. Science indicates evolution not design. So that's what
> > I'll stick to until the weight of evidence changes.
>
> I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that science and design cannot both
> be true. Science may not be able to prove design although it may disprove
> some design-related theory, but it can't prove that things didn't turn out
> the way they were supposed to either.
>
> Gordon Brown
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 27 12:32:36 2007