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?

It is possible to scientifically investigate a supernatural claim if
the supernatural agent is posited to have a regular, measurable effect
on physical objects. E.g., see if people born between certain dates
actually have experiences more in keeping with their newspaper
horoscope than those born at other times.

There are good theological reasons not to expect such patterns.

There are various creation science or ID attempts to redefine science,
but all I have seen are strictly in the category of post hoc
self-justification rather than a serious and careful attempt to
develop a suitable definition. These definitions also generally
confuse the issues of "is it science", "is it valid", and "is it good
science"; similar problems are common in secular efforts to define
science to exclude ID, etc.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.