Re: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

Gregory,

I would join Jon in asking for a list of things opposite to "natural",
in your view. I think that would better clarify your position and
allow the members of the list to evaluate how your paradigm would
interact with issues of interest, such as whether Polkinghorne was
right to (allegedly - haven't seen the quote) question whether the
history of Earth was sufficiently long to produce evolution. That was
the context in which this thread started, after all. Is there a
framework that transcends natural/supernatural which leads to a new
understanding of such issues? I am willing to "dignify or
acknowledge" anything that does so, but I haven't seen it yet except
as your elusive reference to "reflexive science".

For what it's worth, I regard most talking about "natural" to be
imprecise and in that I agree with you. It is, however, useful in a
casual sense. Americans, as you perhaps a little uncharitably noted,
are not known for their insistence on philosophical rigor. We are
instead known for a stubborn insistence on practicality and concision.
 Such has been shown to be of use in mass communication -- which is
the real charisma (sloganeering?) behind ID, not its supposed clarity
about the nature of nature.

I would argue, stubbornly, that any science worth practicing must have
both an object of study and reliable (i.e. physical, within human
ability) methods for studying said object, irrespective of any
definition of "natural" we might choose. McGrath's findings cut both
ways. It may be that non-"natural" methods might be used to study
something, but would those methods be reliable? Could anyone practice
such a science?

Chris

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 20 11:58:18 2007