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

Wouldn't virtually everyone here agree that the phrase "supernatural
science", should it ever be coined, is an oxymoron? And normally that
observation would come with a sneer from self-appointed Secularists.
But it can also come as a sober appraisal of the latter partner's
limitations. I wonder if YECs have ever tried embracing such a phrase.
And if not, why not?

--Merv

Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> Natural as opposed to supernatural.
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer
>
> Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://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.
> *//*
>

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 22:20:20 2007