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

"Thinking outside the box" is one of those slogans that has a legitimate use but is often overextended & used in tendentious ways. Sometimes it's important to stay within the box - one of the major causes of our economic crisis today is bankers, investment "experts" &c who "thought outside the box" & got into activities that banks have no business being involved in & about which those "experts" were ignorant. & where would baseball be if umpires started "thinking outside the box" & letting some players get 4 strikes instead of 3?

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" is another such slogan. Sometimes it's true but often someone who says that really means "If you're not part of my solution, you're part of the problem."

& of course we know about "Teach the controversy" - i.e., raise doubts about evolution.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Michael Roberts
  To: George Murphy ; David Clounch ; ASA
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 8:41 AM
  Subject: 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 09:43:29 2008