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

"Creation science" would be "supernatural science" - (a) if there really were such a thing as the former & (b) if its proponents understood what "creation" means.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Merv
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 10:17 PM
  Subject: 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

    -----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 Mon Nov 12 08:16:31 2007