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

Thanks George. In a nutshell this all we need to know about MN. To me it is a red herring thrown up to cause confusion and to push an offcentre science with an air of intellectual credibility, whereas those who challenge MN and push things like theistic science have none. I suppose it is part of the Culture Wars.

I don't think there is a possible alternative to MN to do science

I am sure I will get shot for not thinking outside the box. But as I have often jumped in and out the box don't see why I should on something like this.

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: David Clounch ; ASA
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 1:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

  I referred of course to the content of what is called "methodological naturalism." It is that content, the ancient principle "Ascribe nothing to the gods" (quoted here recently by Burgy) as a guide for understanding the world that has been an accepted principle of science for centuries. & the reason that "does not engage the average scientist in a lab coat" is because it is accepted almost automatically by such scientists. No serious scientist, including those who pray every day "Give us this day our daily bread," will be content to explain a puzzling result of an experiment by saying "God did it." Therein lies both the content of MN & its distinction from metaphysical naturalism. When the specific phrase "methodological naturalism" was first used is of interest for historians & the editors of the OED but doesn't touch the question of the principle's content & how long it's been accepted.

  Christianity can indeed give proper theological grounding for that principle when science is viewed in a Christian perspective. But of course that grounding will have value only for Christians.

  Shalom
  George
  http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: David Clounch
    To: ASA
    Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 10:56 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

    So the PSCF article by Poe and MyTyk (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF9-07dyn.html) is off base, and DeVries did not in fact use the term for the first time in the peer reviewed literature in 1986?
    Can you point to literature discussing the term prior to 1986. And to non-Christian sources?

    Poe: Karl Giberson and Donald Yerxa have
    argued that the term is the focus of a quarrel
    within the Christian community, but that
    "the quarrel over methodological naturalism
    and theistic science does not engage the
    average scientist in a lab coat ..."3

    And so on. This is all completely off base? It should be easy to show the quarrel going on outside the Christian community, if in fact it actually did. But in that case one wonders why the various referenced authors in the article bother to claim what they did. Seems to me PSCF deserves a rebuttal article. Until I see one I see no reason not to remain skeptical of your claim, George.

    This issue seems to me to be important not only to the ASA but to the entire world. Just as the Gregorian reform gave us equal rights (circa 1075) I believe Christianity gave us methodological naturalism.

    Best Regards,
    David Clounch
        

    On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:06 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

      You do indeed disagree terribly here. MN has been part of the scientific community's tacit understanding of how science works for the past ~350 years and is held by scientists of different religious faiths as well as atheists and agnostics. The reason that it is maintained consistently is that it has been found to lead to fruitful scientific work. MN is quite consistent with good Christian theologies but is not dependent upon any of them.

      Shalom
      George
      http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David Clounch
        To: john_walley@yahoo.com
        Cc: Marcio Pie ; ASA
        Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:53 AM
        Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

        John,

        I terribly disagree.
        MN is a Christian theological solution to a theological problem and should not be taught in schools.
        ................................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 28 08:41:48 2008