Re: [asa] public response

Don The problem with including the supernatural in science is that our human investigative capabilities are limited. Science limits itself to what can be investigated and verified by all parties. In a sense science is poorer for this, but it's unavoidable if science is to be capable of developing repeatable results. By definition the supernatural is known by revelation. We know God because He has revealed Himself to us. And we are richer for that. It seems to me that the right response of Christians to evolution is to conclude and teach that God is far more subtle than we had once believed. It's likely we will never be able to have anything but an argument with folks like Richard Dawkins (although he sent me a very polite response to an email I once sent him) and Sam Harris, but it should be possible to have a civilized faith/science dialog with most scientists. But this depends on Christians recognizing that revelation can't be included in scientific
 investigations and scientists recognizing that science is not the sum total of all knowledge. William E. (Bill) Hamilton, Ph.D. 248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile) "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31 http://www.bricolagia.blogspot.com/ Want to help a child?: http://www.compassion.com/sponsor/index.asp?referer=85198 ----- Original Message ---- From: Donald F Calbreath <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu> To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:36:50 PM Subject: RE: [asa] public response Randy: I would have to disagree with your statement about how science deals with doubts about evolution. One of the major problems for Christians is the fact that any supernatural explanations is, by definition, ruled out. Examples: National Science Teachers Association 2003 statement: "Science is a method of explaining the natural world. It assumes that anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Science also assumes that the universe operates according to regularities that can be discovered and understood through scientific investigations. The testing of various explanations of natural phenomena for their consistency with empirical data is an essential part of the methodology of science. Explanations that are not consistent with empirical evidence or cannot be tested empirically are not a part of science. As a result, explanations of natural phenomena that are not based on evidence but on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, and superstitions are not scientific. Furthermore, because science is limited to explaining natural phenomena through the use of empirical evidence, it cannot provide religious or ultimate explanations. " National Academies of Science (2008) "The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter — that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems — rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science." AAAS 2006 resolution "Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena. Scientists ask questions about the natural world, formulate hypotheses to answer the questions, and collect evidence or data with which to evaluate the hypotheses. Scientific theories are unified explanations of these phenomena supported by extensive testing and evidence." A common theme involves natural explanations of natural phenomena. Any mention of the supernatural is excluded from consideration. If we were really honest, all the discussion on this listserv that makes any mention of God in any type of involvement in the process of evolution would be considered non-scientific. I have often wondered how the scientists here reconcile their concepts of God acting through evolution with the definitions offered by three influential science groups. Please note: I am not arguing for any specific process that may or may not have occurred. And , yes, the way some folks approach the issue really turns me off. I am simply saying that I do not believe you can make an argument that the scientific establishment is open to any real expression of doubt about evolution. Don Calbreath (ASA member) ________________________________________ From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Randy Isaac [randyisaac@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 4:10 PM To: asa@calvin.edu Subject: [asa] public response Rich, It looks as if at least one person wants to continue an "open and honest debate." I think portions of Jeff's review would be quite relevant here. http://deltackett.com/ How can we convey the point that it is not that doubts about evolution, per se, are not acceptable but that it is the quality and method in which those doubts are brought forward. The scientific community would be extremely interested in any data that would alter our understanding in any way. But those skepticisms and questions must go through the same rigor of scientific review and methodology as anything else. And until they do, the doubts are just that, and not legitimate scientific results. Most of all, any attempt to insert such claims that bypasses the normal process is bound to gather pushback. Randy To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 21 08:14:13 2008