RE: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' science [was evolutionary process]

Natural as opposed to supernatural.

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Arago [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:08 PM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' science [was evolutionary
process]

"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

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> www.genesisproclaimed.org

  _____

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email
the boot with the <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
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 19:33:38 2007