“Causes have to be natural to qualify as science, that’s all.” – Dick Fischer (Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:33:55 -0500)
Does this mean that anthropology, philology, economics, sociology, culturology, history and psychology (among others) do not qualify as ‘science’ in your estimation? They all study non-natural things. Yet the ASA welcome acknowledges them as ‘scientific.’ Who can untwist that?
G.A.
Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi John:
It doesn’t have to be totally random and self contained. The great Gipetto in the sky could be pulling all the strings and hiding all evidence. How would we know? Causes have to be natural to qualify as science, that’s all. Total randomness is not a requirement. Random genetic drift, plus environmental factors (something Darwin overlooked), coupled with natural selection, however, seems to prove sufficient. Is idolizing a scientific theory worse than idolizing the Bible? Any idol takes attention away from the living God. You can’t say one idol is good but another one is bad.
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 11 18:10:07 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 11 2007 - 18:10:08 EST