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

George Gamow included the following note in the 2d (1952) edition of his book The Creation of the Universe:

"In view of the objections raised by some reviewers concerning the use of the word "creation," it should be explained that the author understands this term, not in the sense of "making something out of nothing," but rather as "making something shapely out of shapelessness," as, for example, in the phrase "the latest creation of Parisian fashion."

That use of the word excludes one of the most important & distinctive theological (though not the only) senses of the word, creatio ex nihilo. Today some people would argue that science can explain creation out of nothing & to some extent that's true. A simple model using E = mc^2, Newtonian gravity & the idea of quantum jumps allows you to explain the origin of a collection of particles from a state of zero energy. But that doesn't start with a true nihil negativa - you have to assume the existence of space-time & certain physical interactions.

I think it would be better if scientists would not talk about "creation" & leave the word to theologians but that's unrealistic.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Alexanian, Moorad
  To: George Murphy ; Merv ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 8:45 AM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' science [was evolutionary process]

  What do scientists mean when they use to term "creation?" Say, like the creation of the universe.

  Moorad

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
  Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 8:12 AM
  To: Merv; asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: 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 11:03:38 2007