Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution

Moorad -

This distinction has been debated a good deal here (& in other venues), & as
I think you know, I think it's a mistake to make it in any hard & fast
fashion. But let's grant your point for the sake of argument. What does it
have to do with the truth of the statement about evolution. The claim that
Julius Caesar was assasinated in Rome in 44 B.C. is then not scientific but
historical. Do you doubt that it's true? Perhaps you would argue that in
this case we have "historical records" - i.e., written accounts - about the
event. But what then about the information that archaeologists get from
sites where we don't have written records, or at least records we can read,
like the Indus Valley civilization?

Making proper distinctions is certainly critical but sometimes the
distinctions aren't proper & are just obfuscation.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "George Murphy"
<gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: "Steve Martin" <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>; "Ted Davis"
<TDavis@messiah.edu>; "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Rich Blinne"
<rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:45 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Keller on Evolution

One must keep always in mind that statements like "evolution has happened"
or "evolution is a (historical) fact" are actually historical and not
scientific statements. Herein lies the whole issue of evolution as
historical science rather than an experimental science.

Moorad

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 26 15:25:03 2008