Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

David

We are clearly in total agreement and I have known that for a long time.

In almost a one-liner you bring out the implications of this position.

However, how do we make it clear to the wider Christian public who are
seduced by the question, "Were you there?"

One reason why this appeals is that many in our society including those with
some or even much science often think that science must be experimental.
This attitude is summed up in Rutherford's quip. "all science is physics,
the rest is stamp-collecting", which my uncle Grenville Yarnold , a
physicist turned priest, who wrote on Sand R in the 50s and 60s once
jokingly threw at me as a geologist.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

>> In reply to Richard surely it is controversial NOT to accept that
>> "historical evidence can be properly science". If one adopts that
>> position
>> one rejects all historical science such as geology as science. That is as
>> absurd as rejecting all experimental science as non-science.
>
> The only context in which I have encountered the serious claim that
> historical science is not really science is in young-earth attempts to
> deny the credibility of historical science. However, if you deny the
> reliability of historical study you are rejecting Christianity, for
> which the historical evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection are
> crucial.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 26 01:56:06 2008