Since we do not have an accepted definition of what science is, there is always arguments and confusion about the use of the word and thus of the whole discussion involving that word. First, science is based on data. The question is how is that data acquired? Second, the proper statement is what and how do human beings qua scientists interpret the data. In this sense, there is no way that based on purely physical data one can claim design. However, if one includes the scientist qua human being as part of the data, then other data comes into play, say, human rationality, consciousness, life, etc., and if that nonphysical data is included, than design is an obvious conclusion from all that data. Therefore, if, say, evolutionary theory qua scientific theory claims to explain what man is, then ID is clearly science.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Marcio Pie
Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 10:00 AM
To: 'ASA'
Subject: RES: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
Hi David,
I think you might want to read again the quotation I provided. It seems pretty clear to me that C.S. Lewis was arguing that detecting design (the whole point of the ID) is outside the scope of science. Of course, simply pointing out that C. S. Lewis had that position is not a slam-dunk argument about the validity of the ID movement, but it provides an example of a very orthodox Christian thinker who agrees with the rest of the scientific community on this issue (even without any threat to be "expelled" from anything).
Marcio
De: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 26 de novembro de 2008 03:49
Para: john_walley@yahoo.com
Cc: Marcio Pie; ASA
Assunto: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:17 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are correct in calling materialism a religious view but wrongly calling ID science
John,
Excuse me, I'm sorry, I don't get what you are saying here. CS Lewis implied materialism is a religious view. Where did either Lewis or I say anything whatsoever about ID?
And of course CS Lewis is not part of any conspiracy. Marcio is obviously remarking tongue-in-cheek.
Yes, materialism should be revealed for being the metaphyisics and non-Christian religion it is. CS Lewis did a good job of this. It should definitely be revealed in churches. And also in schools.
Until people understand materialism to not be science then confusion will reign supreme indeed. And the ones who need to hear about this the most are those in the pews. Surely you are not advocating that hiding truth in church is an edification.
Thank you,
David Clounch
John
--- On Mon, 11/24/08, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
> To: "Marcio Pie" <pie@ufpr.br>
> Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 11:57 AM
> Lewis said,
>
> 'If there is "Something Behind," then
> either it will have to remain
> altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in
> some different way.
> The statement that there is any such thing, and the
> statement that there is
> no such thing, are neither of them statements that science
> can make. '
>
> This is why materialism is a religious view. Its not a
> statement that
> science can make. Separation of materialism and state is
> appropriate just as
> is separation of any religious view and state. Injecting
> materialism as a
> preferred view into a government run science curriculum
> violates this.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Marcio Pie
> <pie@ufpr.br> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Speaking of Mere Christianity, I thought this
> quotation at the end of book
> > 1 is particularly relevant to the ID discussion.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Ever since men were able to think, they
> have been wondering what
> > this
> >
> > universe really is and how it came to be there. And,
> very roughly, two
> > views
> >
> > have been held. First, there is what is called the
> materialist view.
> > People
> >
> > who take that view think that matter and space just
> happen to exist,
> > and
> >
> > always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the
> matter, behaving
> > in
> >
> > certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort
> of fluke, to
> > produce
> >
> > creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one
> chance in a
> > thousand
> >
> > something hit our sun and made it produce the
> planets; and by
> > another
> >
> > thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for
> life, and the
> > right
> >
> > temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so
> some of the matter
> > on
> >
> > this earth came alive; and then, by a very long
> series of chances,
> > the
> >
> > living creatures developed into things like us.
> The other view is
> > the
> >
> > religious view. According to it, what is behind
> the universe is
> > more
> >
> > like a mind than it is like anything else we know.
> >
> > That is to say, it is conscious, and has
> purposes, and prefers
> > one
> >
> > thing to another. And on this view it made the
> universe, partly for
> > purposes
> >
> > we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to
> produce creatures
> > like
> >
> > itself-I mean, like itself to the extent of
> having minds. Please do
> > not
> >
> > think that one of these views was held a long time
> ago and that the
> > other
> >
> > has gradually taken its place. Wherever there have
> been thinking men
> > both
> >
> > views turn up. And note this too. You cannot find
> out which view is
> > the
> >
> > right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science
> works by experiments.
> > It
> >
> > watches how things behave. Every scientific
> statement in the long
> > run,
> >
> > however complicated it looks, really means
> something like, "I pointed
> > the
> >
> > telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20
> A.M. on January
> > 15th
> >
> > and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this
> stuff in a pot and heated it
> > to
> >
> > such-and-such a temperature and it did
> so-and-so." Do not think I am
> > saying
> >
> > anything against science: I am only saying what its
> job is. And the
> > more
> >
> > scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would
> agree with me that
> > this
> >
> > is the job of science- and a very useful and
> necessary job it is too.
> > But
> >
> > why anything comes to be there at all, and whether
> there is anything
> > behind
> >
> > the things science observes-something of a
> different kind-this is not
> > a
> >
> > scientific question. If there is "Something
> Behind," then either it
> > will
> >
> > have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make
> itself known in
> > some
> >
> > different way. The statement that there is any such
> thing, and the
> > statement
> >
> > that there is no such thing, are neither of them
> statements that science
> > can
> >
> > make. And real scientists do not usually make them.
> It is usually
> > the
> >
> > journalists and popular novelists who have picked up
> a few odds and ends
> > of
> >
> > half-baked science from textbooks who go in for
> them. After all, it
> > is
> >
> > really a matter of common sense."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder if that means that C. S. Lewis is also part
> of the conspiracy to
> > deny the scientific legitimacy of the ID movement...
> >
> >
> >
> > Marcio
> >
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 26 10:36:29 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 26 2008 - 10:36:29 EST