Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

Because your methodology is intentionally NOT to consider "all" the
evidence.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>wrote:

> However, when I do research in physics, I do not use any theological
> treatise to carry on my work. I suppose this is true when doing scientific
> work in any of the experimental sciences. Somehow, we have to be more
> specific and consider only the data that is truly relevant when doing
> unadulterated science.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Opderbeck
> Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 12:16 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: George Murphy; John Burgeson (ASA member); David Clounch;
> john_walley@yahoo.com; Marcio Pie; ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
>
>
> My stab at this would be the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition,
> Reason, and Experience.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
> Would someone tell me what "Consider All the evidence" really means?
> What evidence? How acquired?
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Murphy
> Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 11:41 AM
> To: David Opderbeck; John Burgeson (ASA member)
>
> Cc: David Clounch; john_walley@yahoo.com; Marcio Pie; ASA
>
> Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
>
>
>
> David is correct. However, it's the "Ascribe nothing to the gods"
> principle that really corresponds to MN. & simply stating it that way
> (instead of "Ascribe nothing to God") suggests one reason - certainly not
> the only or the most important one - for MN: Which gods? If science is to
> be a public enterprise and "the gods" are to be a legitimate way of
> explaining phenomena we'll run into problems when some ascribe the bacterial
> flagellum to YHWH, some to Krishna, some to Odin, &c. & the problem is not
> avoided by saying "the Designer" as long as it's clear that that entity is
> in the "gods" category.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> To: John Burgeson (ASA member) <mailto:
> hossradbourne@gmail.com>
> Cc: David Clounch <mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com> ;
> john_walley@yahoo.com ; Marcio Pie <mailto:pie@ufpr.br> ; ASA <mailto:
> asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
>
> Burgy said: 1. Consider ALL the evidence
> 2. Ascribe nothing to the gods.
>
> I respond: I think MN is a valuable pragmatic limitation on
> a particular, narrow kind of human inquiry that we call "natural science."
> However, the two statements above seem contradictory to me. What if the
> "evidence" involves the activity of the gods? MN specifically and
> deliberately says "do NOT consider all the evidence." In fact, from a legal
> perspective, I would view MN as an exclusionary rule of evidence. In the
> courtroom, we don't allow juries to consider "all" the evidence -- we have
> lots of exclusionary rules based on reliability (hearsay), competence
> (limits on expert testimony), privileges (attorney client privilege),
> constitutional rights ("fruit of the poisoned tree" re: search and seizure;
> evidence obtained by torture), scope (relevance) and so on. A judicial
> proceeding is not really a search for capital-T Truth; it is a limited
> device pragmatically designed to adjudicate the truth of particularly
> defined human rights and relationships. Likewise, Science cannot seek or
> define capital-T Truth. Science is a limited device designed to uncover
> natural processes. Science oversteps its bounds when it claims to consider
> "all" the evidence.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM, John Burgeson (ASA member)
> <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/25/08, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> "MN is a Christian theological solution to a
> theological problem and
> should not be taught in schools. Unless the school
> treats it as a
> religious theory in a comparative religion class."
>
>
> I assume you mean MN as meaning "Methodological
> Naturalism." If so, it
> was "taught" as long ago as 1 BC (+ or - some years)
> by the Greek
> Lucretus. Also by Epictitus. And more recently by my
> physics
> professors at Carnegie Tech in the 1950s.
>
> t was sort of a bedrock principle to them. I remember
> being taught the
> "Two basics of science" as:
>
> 1. Consider ALL the evidence
> 2. Ascribe nothing to the gods.
>
> (This last a quotaton from the ancient Greeks, of
> course.)
>
> I have a faint memory of it also being taught in my
> high school class,
> but I'm not sure of this. But it makes sense to
> introduce it then
> anyway.
>
>
> 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 Nov 26 14:12:04 2008